State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Haryana Urban Development ... vs 2. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban ... on 5 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.318 of 2005 Date of Institution: 28.02.2005 Date of Decision: 05.01.2012 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 12, Faridabad through its Estate Officer/Administrator. 2. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula. Appellants (Ops) Versus Sukh Raj Bal wife of Shri Raj Dial Bal, through its GPA Naresh Kumar Goel son of Shri S.R. Goel, Resident of H.No.86, Sector 17, Faridabad. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for Shri B.S. Walia, Advocate for appellants. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faridabad in complaint No.631 of 2004 whereby appellants-opposite parties have been held deficient for not offering/delivering the possession of plot No.2416, Sector-2, Faridabad which was allotted to her vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.1700 dated 18.11.1998. Complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and directions given below were issued to the appellants-opposite parties:-
1. The respondents are ordered to allot plot No.2063 Sector-2 to the complainant in lieu of the originally allotted plot bearing No.2416 Sector-2, Faridabad on the similar price, on which plot was originally allotted to the complainant.
2. The respondents are also ordered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant on his deposits w.e.f. its deposit till the delivery of the physical possession of the alternative plot as ordered above.
3. The respondents are further ordered to charge the similar price for an additional area if in case it is found that the alternative plot is more in area than the originally allotted plot. Similarly, if the area of the alternative plot is found less, then the price would also be deducted on the similar rate, as per the allotment of the originally allotted plot.
4. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of escalation of price of construction material, harassment, damages and mental agony.
5. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.2200/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
The respondents are also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the respondent-complainant was allotted plot No.2416, Sector-2, Faridabad vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.1700 dated 18.11.1998 because of the reason that due to encroachment on the plot, the same was deleted from the demarcation plan. Thus, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and sought direction to the opposite parties to allot an alternative plot in lieu of the originally allotted plot on the same price and not to charge interest on the instalments till the offer of possession of the alternative plot and further to pay compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction as well as mental agony and harassment suffered by her.
District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Respondent exparte.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties is that the complainant cannot be allotted an alternative plot with specific number. It is further contended that the District Forum wrongly granted other relief by way of interest as well as the escalation in the cost of construction because the complainant has already been compensated by allotting the alternative plot on the old rates.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is attractive. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to allot a specific plot to the complainant and it has to be considered by HUDA authorities to allot an alternative plot to the complainant in the same sector or the adjoining sectors as per availability of the plot, however, at the same old rates at which the original plot was allotted to the complainant. As the complainant is being compensated by allotting the alternative plot at the old rates despite the fact that the prices of the immovable property in Urban Estate have increased many folds, therefore, she is not entitled for any interest or the escalation in the cost of construction. Complainant has not led any evidence with respect to the increase in the cost of construction by way of examining any Civil Engineer. On assumption and presumption no relief can be granted to the complainant on this count. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate these aspects of the case and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly accepted and by modifying the impugned order direction is given to the appellants-opposite parties to allot an alternative plot to the respondent-complainant in the same sector or adjoining sectors, of same size and on the same price at which the original plot was allotted to her. The other reliefs with respect to interest and escalation price of Rs.50,000/- in the cost of construction are set aside. However, the cost of litigation of Rs.2200/- is maintained.
The impugned order is modified on the terms indicated above and this appeal is disposed of.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 05.01.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member