HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJ SINGH AHLAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 15. 11. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant penalty amount of Rs. 50,000 imposed upon the complainant by the appellant-opposite parties has been quashed and further direction has been given to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 20,000 already deposited, to the complainant within a period of 60 days of the passing of the order failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum w. e. f. 15. 1. 2003 onwards.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case as can be gathered from the record need to be noticed in the forefront. The complainant had completed the construction of house on plot No. 172 located in Sector-1, Rohtak. Thereafter, he applied for getting the completion certificate to the opposite parties. Because of certain violation committed, while raising construction in terms of the approved map, the opposite parties imposed penalty amount of Rs. 50,000 upon the complainant. The complainant has challenged the said penalty amount. He had also filed an appeal but the same was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed revision which was decided on merits against him. Thereafter, he deposited Rs. 20,000 under protest with the opposite parties. The opposite parties served a notice dated 2. 8. 2001 for depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000, which was followed by another letter dated 30. 8. 2001. Challenging the legality of the above stated notices and the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000 claimed by the opposite parties as compounding fee as alleged, the complainant filed the present complaint terming the order dated 10. 9. 1999 being illegal, null and void and not binding upon him. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. While justifying the demand made and the order passed, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. In addition, the additional plea of estoppel and non-maintainability of the complaint were also raised. On the basis of the above stated respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions in its order dated 15. 11. 2002 noticed above. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties have been heard at length. None has chosen to appear to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent-complainant.