RAJESH BAKSHI Vs. H P NAGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, by this complaint, has prayed that the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party) should be directed to pay damages to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of increase in the cost of construction because of delay in handing over the possession of the plot, loss of rental value and harassment, mental torture and agony.

(2.) The brief relevant facts set out in the complaint are that the complainant in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the opposite party, applied for the allotment of plot under 4th Partially Self-Financing Scheme for residential complex below Bishop Cotton School in Kasumpti Zone of New Shimla and alongwith the application, he deposited Rs.9,000/- as earnest money. On the basis of such an application, the complainant was allotted a plot Type-B under 4th Partially Self-Financing Scheme for residential Complex below Bishop Cotton School in Kasumpti Zone of New Shimla subject to certain terms and conditions contained in brochure of the Scheme and Regulations of Shimla Development Authority as amended from timeto-time vide letter dated 11.11.1986, Annexure C-l. According to this letter, the tentative cost of the plot Type 'b' was Rs.60,000/-. According to the complainant, an amount of Rs.9,000/- was already paid by him alongwith the application as earnest money and Rs.9,000/- was required to be paid by way of first instalment before 9.12.1986 and that the complainant was further required to pay 12 monthly instalments before 9th of each month from January, 1987 to December, 1987 @ Rs.1500/- per month. The balance amount was payable by the complainant with interest within 6 years starting from January, 1988. According to the complainant, he had in terms of the schedule of payment prescribed in this letter, deposited the entire amount as demanded by the opposite party upto December, 1987. In other words, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.36,000/- by December, 1987 (Rs.9,000/- alongwith application as earnest money, Rs.9,000/- as first instalment on allotment before December, 1986 and Rs.18,000/- in 12 monthly instalments upto December, 1987. Further, according to the complainant, the opposite party was required to deliver the possession of the plot after receiving the aforementioned amount upto December, 1987 in terms of the schedule, brochure and the allotment letter. When the complainant did not get the possession of the plot within one year, the complainant represented to the opposite party and he was informed vide letter dated 29.3.1988, Annexure C-6, that the work of development of plots had been delayed due to un-avoidable circumstances and that the complainant would be informed one month before likely date of handing over possession for exercising his option forgetting preferential plot on payment of extra charges as already intimated in the allotment letter, Annexure C-l. The balance amount of the plot was recoverable with interest in monthly instalments in 6 years after having over the possession of the plot, payment schedule for which would also be intimated. However, later on, vide letter dated 22.6.1991, Annexure C-7, the complainant was informed by the opposite party that Plot No.8, Type 'b' in Sector-11, Main road under 4th Partially Self-Financing Scheme having total area of 138.24 sq. mtrs. in the Complex had been allotted to him. The complainant was shocked to know that the total consideration of the plot was shown in the aforementioned letter as Rs.1,25,798/- instead of Rs.60,000/-. In that letter, no doubt, it was admitted that a sum of Rs.36,000/- had already been paid by the complainant and a balance of Rs.80,798/- in 72 monthly instalments is payable. Accordingly, the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement was executed between the opposite party and the complainant. The complainant, however, took possession of the plot on 12.10.1992. According to the complainant, he has never agreed to pay the escalated price and that he should be awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount to compensate him for the loss suffered by him. The complainant is not only aggrieved against the enhanced and escalated price but also by another letter dated 6.8.1993, Annexure C-8, whereby the complainant has 'again been asked to deposit Rs.47,278/- within one month on account of enhancement in land compensation as per me award of the District Judge, Shimla, dated 30.4.1993 in land acquisition proceedings. According to the complainant, enhancement of the price of the plot on account of land acquisition charges is unwarranted and illegal in the eyes of law. The complainant consequently has claimed compensation aforementioned, the details of which have been given in paragraph 9 of the complaint.

(3.) The opposite party has controverted the allegations of the complainant and raised various objections which include preliminary objections that the Shimla Development Authority has been dissolved and a new Authority known as Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran was created by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Sec.40 of the Town and Country Planning Act and which has not been made a party and that the complaint is barred by limitation, Further, according to die opposite party, no time has been given by them to deliver the possession of the plot either in the allotment letter or in the brochure and, according to them, it is difficult to give specific time for the development of such a big colony as Shimla Town has a peculiar weather as well as topographic conditions and the execution of the Project has been delayed due to the reasons beyond its control and no deficiency can be attributed to it. Further, it cannot be said that there has been delay in delivering the possession of the plot to the complainant as the possession in the present case was offered to be delivered on 22.6.1991 within a reasonable period. The complainant, like other allottees, was also given an option to withdraw from the scheme as the price has escalated due to the reasons beyond its control and that the complainant, therefore, cannot have any possible grievance on this account. Furthermore, the enhanced cost of the plot on account of land acquisition charges has been demanded because of the enhancement of land compensation in land acquisition proceedings before the District Judge, Shimla. On the merits, the opposite party has stated that the complainant was offered to take possession of the plot on 22.6.1991 after completing all the codal formalities and it has been reiterated time and again by the opposite party that no time has been prescribed for handing over the possession of the plot and the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and the allotment letter and no interest can be awarded for delayed delivery of the possession of the plot as the plot has been delivered within a reasonable period.