HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SUBHASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals - Appeal No.778 of 1994 filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority and Appeal No.782 of 1994 filed by Shri Subhash Goyal against the impugned order dated 28.9.1994 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complaint of Mr. Subhash Goyal has been allowed and HUDA has been directed to pay interest to the complainant on the amount deposited by the complainant as it failed to driver possession of the plot allotted to him in the year 1985. The complainant approached the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, with the grievance that even though he was allotted plot No.1568 in Sector 23/23-A, Gurgaon on 13.11.1985 and he had deposited the amount of sale consideration, i. e. Rs.68,387/- by instalments yet the possession of the plot was not delivered to him. The enquiries made by him revealed that plot No.1568 stood omitted from the map of HUDA and hence an alternative plot bearing number 4066 in the same Sector was allotted, but the possession of even this alternative plot had not been delivered to the complainant. In reply, the HUDA pleaded that as the complainant had not disputed the sale consideration of the plot in question and had duly accepted, he could not object to the price of the plot. It was, therefore, pleaded that the final touches were being given to complete the development works and the possession of the plot would be delivered very shortly. The learned District Consumer Forum, after examining the evidence produced by the parties with regard to the allotment of the original as well as the alternative plot, the deposit of the sale price, etc. , came to the conclusion that in a number of cases possession had already been delivered by HUDA as far back as in October, 1992 in the same Sector, whereas the complainant had been awaiting for the last about one decade. For this reason, the complaint has been allowed and the HUDA has been directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant till the date of actual possession to the complainant.

(2.) In the appeal filed by HUDA, it has been vehemently contended by the learned Counsel Mr. O. P. Sharma, that unless the enhanced price had been fully paid the development of the plot was difficult due to lack of funds. It has been further contended that the complainant had also gone to the Civil Court to challenge the enhancement of price of the plot and due to the pendency of litigation and the matter being sub judice the District Forum should not have precipitated the matter by accepting the complaint. In the cross appeal filed by the complainant the plea raised by the learned Counsel is that it was only in the case of the complainant that HUDA has not delivered possession whereas a number of persons similarly situated have already got the same.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that pendency of litigation in the Civil Court was no ground to delay the delivery of possession of the plot to the complainant as a number of other allottees who were similarly situated had already got possession of their plots in the same Sector. Moreover, the relief claimed or the interim order passed by the Civil Court did not overlap the nature and scope of the dispute being tried under the consumer jurisdiction. However, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the record we are of the considered view that the ends of justice stand adequately met by the relief already granted to the complainant and no ground having been made out for the enhancement of compensation in favour of the complainant or for the dismissal of the complaint, both the appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.