MAHESH KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal Nos. 245, 246 and 247 of 2007 are similar and all the three appeals are against the order dated 13th March, 2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Panchkula. Hence, these three appeals are clubbed together and decided together.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the complainant, in Complaint No. 18 of 1999 is that the complainant S/Shri Mahesh Kumar, Satish Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Sanjay Kumar had purchased SCO No. 2 located in Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, in an open auction on 15th March, 1993 for Rs. 13,80,000. They had deposited 10% of the price on the date of auction i.e., 15th March, 1993 and the remaining 15% within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter. As Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula (HUDA) failed to carry out the development works in the area and to hand over the possession of the site to them, they filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 73 of 1994 in Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh with a prayer that writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the site immediately after making development in the area and HUDA be restrained from seeking the remaining instalments of the site till the possession was delivered and the complainants be allowed to deposit the remaining instalments after possession was delivered to them.

(3.) During the pendency of this writ petition, the complainants also filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1109 of 1995 seeking stay of the payment of instalments. As per the order dated 30th March, 1995, the High Court directed the opposite parties not to recover the instalments from the complainants till the possession of the site was offered. Thereafter, HUDA offered possession of the site to the complainants on 9th January, 1996 which according to the complainants were without amenities, which were brought to the notice of the High Court. The High Court passed a common order on 27th February, 1998, whereby the complainants were asked to deposit the amount within fifteen days from 27th Feburary, 1998 and the remaining instalments was to be paid within one month, thereafter, which was accordingly deposited by them. Complainants further alleged that the possession of the plot was not delivered to them, which according to them, deemed to have been delivered only on 28th January, 1998 when the development work was completed. As they had deposited the amount prior to this date they suffered loss because of non-use of the plot and they are entitled to interest @ 18% per annum for the above said period upto 28th January, 1998. Complainants also claimed that they are entitled to recover Rs. 9,86,392 on account of total loss suffered by them due to deficiency in service provided by the HUDA.