RADHA KRISHAN CHOUDHARY Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of above mentioned two appeals bearing No. 772 of 2002 and 840 of 2002 as they have arisen out of the common order dated 20. 2. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that the complainant Radha Krishan Choudhary had applied for 10 Marlas plot in Section-8, Urban Estate, Ambala and had deposited Rs. 33,943 as earnest money along with Application No. 37821 dated 15. 1. 2000 bearing registration No. BKNL-00544. But the said application was registered by the opposite parties for allotment of plots in Sectors 4 and 5 located at Karnal and his name was included in the draw of lots held at Karnal and not at Ambala. The complainant was successful in getting the allotment of plot of 10 Marlas bearing No. 448 located in Sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal for which he received written communication. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant seeking proof having applied for the allotment of the plot at Karnal despite the fact that the original application was with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties returned the earnest money to the complainant without interest and cancelled the allotment of the plot made in his name at Karnal. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum terming the cancellation of the plot at Karnal as unjustified being an unfair trade practice because he had been denied allotment of plot in the Urban Estate of Ambala on account of non-inclusion of his name in draw of lots held for the plots at Ambala. Accordingly, he sought directions against the opposite parties to restore the allotment of the plot of 10 Marlas to him located in Sectors 4 and 5 Karnal or to allot an alternative plot in Sector-8, Urban Estate, Ambala; to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for the mistake committed by the opposite parties by putting his name in draw of lots at Karnal which resulted in cancellation of the same; to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of compensation and also on the amount of earnest money deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties and further to pay Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was not disputed that the complainant had applied for residential plot of 10 Marlas located in Sector-8, Ambala for which application was received by them. It was further stated that inadvertently due to computer mistake the name of the complainant was not put in draw of lots at Karnal and for that reason he was asked to produce the original record for the allotment of plot in Urban Estate, Karnal but he only could produce the bank receipt for allotment of the plot at Ambala. Under the circumstances of the case they justified the cancellation of the allotment of the plot made to him at Karnal. After the Estate Officer, HUDA had submitted the copy of the application duly signed by the complainant for allotment of 10 Marlas plot in Sector-8, Ambala, his name was also entered in the computer list for the allotment of plot and his name was included in the draw of lots for Ambala. It was further stated that a sum of Rs. 33,943 had been refunded to him by the Estate Officer, Ambala vide cheque No. 598738 dated 25. 9. 2000 though the said cheque was not accepted by the complainant. Accordingly it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Taking into account the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 33,943 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit being 15. 1. 2000 till the date of payment. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum as per order dated 20. 2. 2002 the appellant-complainant has filed First Appeal No. 772 of 2002 while the appellants-opposite parties have challenged the impugned order in First Appeal No. 840 of 2002.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the appellant-complainant has been heard at length. None has chosen to appear on behalf of the HUDA-opposite parties at the time of arguments.