HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25. 8. 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal whereby while accepting the complaint No. 435 of 9. 10. 2003 filed by respondent-complainants following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite parties:

(2.) THE facts of the case have to be focussed in the forefront in order to decide the present appeal. A residential plot No. 126 measuring 10 Marlas located in Mandi Township, Pundri was allotted to Krishan on a tentative price of Rs. 3,29,947, as per allotment letter No. 3216 dated 29. 9. 2000. Thereafter, it was transferred to the complainants as per re-allotment letter bearing No. E. O. KTL-95/7599 dated 9. 10. 2001. In terms of Clause 7 (ii) of the allotment letter dated 29. 9. 2000, it was specifically mentioned therein that the possession of the site be obtained by visiting personally or through any representative on any working day. The grievance of the complainants is that factually the development work as stated in the allotment letter was not completed by the opposite parties and for that reason offer of the possession of the plot so made in the allotment letter was an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. According to the complainants they had visited the site on 28. 9. 2002 after making the payment of second instalment with a view to start construction of their house on the said plot but they came to know that the electricity, sewerage, water and roads facilities had not been provided. They further found that it was not a preferential plot. It was also stated that treating the plot as preferential plot, the same should have been located at a site having two roads but factually no such roads were there. Therefore, the opposite parties had wrongly stated in the allotment letter that it was a preferential plot. Further, according to the complainant a park is located on one site of the plot which is source of nuisance to them. They have further averred that the opposite parties had wrongly charged Rs. 29,995 as additional price being 10% of the total tentative price being preferential one. At the same time it was admitted that the allottees of the plot Nos. 166 and 152 had constructed their houses who were facing hardship in the construction work for want of provision of electricity as they had to take electricity from the Grain Market installing temporary Ballies with the help of their own wires and cables. It was further stated that all the manholes were lying choked and were leaking under the construction. Despite these shortcomings the opposite parties had demanded extension fee of Rs. 2,090 as per letter bearing Memo No. 3200 dated 26. 8. 2003. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complainants sought direction against the opposite parties to complete the development work in the area where the plot in question is located; not to charge possession interest and extension fee till the essential facilities are provided in the sector; to refund the amount of possession interest charged during the period September, 2001 to September, 2003 on the instalments amount; to refund the extension fee charged during the period 2003 onwards; to refund the amount of Rs. 29,995 illegally charged as additional price @ 10% of the total tentative price of the plot by mentioning the plot in question as preferential plot; to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as escalation charges of the cost of construction; to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed they raised the preliminary objections with regard to the locus standi, cause of action and non-maintainability of the complaint in the present form. On merits it was stated that the development work like roads, sewerage, electricity and water had been completed as per letter No. 3739 dated 9. 4. 1996 and letter No. 2416 dated 10. 12. 2003 and for that reason there was no deficiency on their part, as alleged by the complainants. It was further maintained that the possession of the plot was delivered to the allottee at the time of allotment. Consequently, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum did not accept the version of the opposite parties and issued the directions to the opposite parties as per order dated 25. 8. 2005 noticed above. Hence, the present appeal at the behest of the appellant-opposite parties.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.