HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJ DULARI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 8. 8. 2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh, UT partly allowing appeal against the order dated 12. 3. 1999 of a District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint quashing the demand of extension fee of Rs. 2,508, ordering the petitioner-Authority to hand over possession of the plot in question and allowing time of two years for construction to the respondent. Compensation of Rs. 2,000 towards mental agony was also awarded in favour of the respondent. In appeal by the respondent, the petitioner-Authority was further directed to pay interest @ 15% p. a. after two years from the date of full payment i. e. 13. 1. 1992 till 31. 7. 2006.

(2.) RESPONDENT was allotted plot bearing No. 1554, measuring 10 Marlas vide allotment letter No. 5808 dated 16. 12. 85 for a tentative price of Rs. 43,442. 75 by the petitioner. Payment of the total amount was made by the respondent upto 13. 1. 92. Respondent alleged that instead of handing over physical possession of the plot fully developed the Authority issued demand notice dated 29. 3. 1995 asking her to pay Rs. 2,508 as extension fee upto 31. 12. 1995. Neither she was offered possession of the allotted plot nor is she liable to pay the amount demanded towards extension fee. Respondent, therefore, filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner-Authority by filing written version. In the written version it was, inter alia, stated that physical possession of the plot in question was offered to the respondent vide letter No. 3503 dated 18. 7. 1991. This letter was sent on the address of House No. 95, Sector 10a, Chandigarh whereas the respondent was residing in House No. 95, Sector 19a, Chandigarh. Since the letter was sent on wrong address, the District Forum returned the finding that it was not received by the respondent. Consequently, demand towards extension fee of Rs. 2,508 was quashed in addition to granting other reliefs to the respondent as noticed above. Admittedly, the petitioner-Authority did not file any appeal against the District Forum's order. As may be seen from the order of State Commission, the respondent was deemed to have been offered possession of the plot in question on the date of filing of written version on 31. 7. 1996. In this backdrop, no fault can be found in the order of State Commission ordering payment of interest on deposited money from 13. 1. 1992, the last date of deposit till 31. 7. 1996, the date of filing of written version. Revision petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. Revision Petition dismissed.