National Consumer Disputes Redressal
S.C. Jain vs Haryana Urban Development Authority on 21 November, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 789 OF 2012
(Arising out of the order dated 06.09.2011 in First
Appeal No. 2691 of 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Haryana, Panchkula)
S.C.
Jain
S/o
Sh. P.C. Jain
R/o-
150, Sector 14, Sonepat, GPA of
Smt.
Sunita Paliwal W/o Sh. Mahender Paliwal and
Sh.
Mahender Paliwal S/o Sh. Ram Narain
R/o-
New Colony, Sonepat
Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Through its Estate Officer, HUDA,
Sonepat Respondent
AND
REVISION PETITION NO. 790 OF 2012
(Arising out of the order dated 06.09.2011 in First
Appeal No. 2658 of 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Haryana, Panchkula)
Megha
Jain
D/o
Sh. S.C. Jain
R/o-
150, Sector 14, Sonepat
Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Through its Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat Respondent
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioners : In person
PRONOUNCED ON 21st NOVEMBER, 2012
O R D E R
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. This order shall decide above detailed two revision petitions which entail the same question of the facts and law. Plot No. 1896 situated in Sector-12 Sonepat was originally allotted to one Krishana Rani vide allotment letter dated 03.04.1998, who sold the plot to Sh. S. C. Jain, complainant/petitioner in revision petition no. 789/2012.
2. Likewise plot no. 1878-P situated in Sector-12, Sonepat was originally allotted to one Kapur Singh vide the allotment letter dated 03.04.1998 which was sold to the second petitioner Smt. Megha Jain D/o Sh. S. C. Jain in revision petition no. 790/2012.
Both the plots were transferred in the name of the complainants vide re-allotment letter dated 19.08.1998 and 08.09.1998 respectively. The possession was offered to both the complainants vide letters dated 06.09.2000.
3. In the meantime, the complainants filed separate complaints on 01.02.2005 before the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat with the allegations that the possession of the plots were offered to them without completing the development works and they sought interest on the deposited amount. The District Forum directed HUDA, OP to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the amount lying deposited with the respondent which they are utilising without providing any services to the complainants and the said interest be paid with effect from period of 2 years from the date of allotment i.e. with effect from 03.04.2000 till the actual physical possession of the plot after making development and after providing the basic amenities around the plot of the complainants was delivered. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- each was also granted. Aggrieved by that order, both the petitioners filed respective complaints before the District Forum.
5. The appeal was filed before the State Forum by the HUDA. The State Forum accepted the appeal being barred by Section 24A of the Limitation Act and the re-allottee was not entitled to claim compensation on these grounds.
6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners. The complainants were re-allotted the plot on 08.09.1998 and the possession was offered to them on 06.09.2000, whereas the instant complaint was filed on 01.02.2005 with the allegations that the plot was not developed at the time of offer of the possession. The State Forum has placed reliance on State Bank of India V. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)= JT 2009 (4) SC 191 and V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena Fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP).
7. The State Commission has cited authority reported in Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Raje Ram, 1 (2009) CPJ 56 and given the details which are completely applicable to this case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the facts of authority of Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Raje Ram, 1 (2009) CPJ 56 are different.
It was argued that the intention of law can never be to the effect that a re-allottee can never claim or demand the development in case the authorities failed to do the statutory commitments and offer the possession without fulfilling the commitments at the time of allotment and the development had also been promised in the re-allotment letter.
The State Commission could have taken into consideration the fact that the respondents were duty bound to issue the possession letter only after completion of the development work at the spot. The complainants are always ready to get the possession after the development work is complete.
9. We clab no significance to these arguments because these cases are fully covered by the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Raje Ram, 1 (2009) CPJ 56. Paras 6 & 7 run as follows:-
6. The decision of National Commission in Darsh Kumar, followed in the impugned orders, did not find favour of this Court in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, III (2004) CPJ 34 (SC)=V (2004) SLT 297=2005 (9) SCC
449. This Court observed that where possession is given at the old rate, the party has got the benefit of escalation in price of land, and therefore, there cannot and should not be award of interest on the amounts paid by the allottee on the ground of delay in allotment. On the special facts of that case, this Court however awarded compensation for harassment/mental agony.
7. Respondents in the three appeals are not the original allottees. They are re-allottees to whom re-allotment was made by the appellant in the years 1994, 1997 and 1996 respectively. They were aware, when the plots were re-allotted to them, that there was delay (either in forming the layout itself or delay in delivering the allotted plot on account of encroachment, etc). In spite of it, they took re-allotment. Their cases cannot be compared to the cases of original allottees who were made to wait for a decade or more for delivery and thus put to mental agony and harassment. They were aware that time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of the contract and the original allottees had accepted the delay
10. In the result, the revision petitions are without merit and the same are, therefore, dismissed.
...
(J. M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER PSM/1&2