HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MAYA VAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT had applied for residential plot admeasuring 300 sq. mtrs. and he was allotted plot No. 1258, Sector 21 -D, Faridabad vide allotment Memo No. 1764 dated 9.4.1994 for total consideration of Rs. 3,51,000. The complainant deposited the said amount in instalment from the year 1993 to 2000 as can be seen from para 3 of the complaint. The respondent demanded further sum of Rs.1,62,000 towards enhanced price and the game was deposited by the complainant on 11.2.2000. The complainant took possession of the plot vide possession letter dated 5.3.2001. The complainant found that the said plot was of odd shape (Shermukhi) as the length of the said plot was 81 ft. and width was 60 ft. and 45 ft. The respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 3,72,000 towards price of excess area of the plot. The complainant was not interested in the excess area of the plot beyond 300 sq. mtrs. since the shape of the plot was 'Shermukhi'. According to the complainant, as per Hindu mythology, no Hindu prefers a plot which has a shape of 'Shermukhi'. The complainant approached the Administrator but the appeal was dismissed without giving any reason or speaking order. The complainant therefore, filed complaint in the District Consumer Forum

(2.) THE District Consumer Forum held that the complainant had applied for a plot of 300 sq.mtrs. but the petitioner had allotted a bigger plot. It was also held by the Consumer Forum that the plot which had been allotted to the complainant could not be utilized for residential purpose on account of its odd shape. The District Consumer Forum, therefore, held the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service for not allotting plot of 300 sq. mtrs which was applied by the complainant. The District Consumer Forum, therefore, passed the following order:

(3.) BOTH the parties filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission took into consideration the findings of the District Consumer Forum and held that it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to deliver possession of the plot to the allottee within two years of its allotment after completing the development works in the area. However, possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant only on 5.3.2001. It was also held that not only the bigger plot beyond 300 sq.mtrs. applied by the complainant had been allotted but on account of its odd shape, it could not be utilized for residential purpose. Therefore, it was held that the complainant is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited after two years from the date of allotment i.e. 9.6.1996 till possession of the plot is delivered to him. The rest of the order of the District Consumer Forum was maintained. This order of the State Commission is subject matter of challenge by the present petitioner.