National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Gulshan Malik on 6 December, 2005
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. Present Revision Petition is filed by Revision Petitioner-HUDA against the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by the State Commission, Haryana Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 2292 of 2004. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with the modification Of waiving off the compensation of Rs. 20,000 directed by the District Forum to be paid to the respondent. Brief facts of the case are:
2. The respondent/complainant is Mr. Gulshan Malik who was allotted an individual plot No. 132, Sector 58, Faridabad admeasuring 1/8 acres vide Letter of Intent dated 15.4.1999. Pursuant to this, respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 88,803 being 10% of the total price on 4.3.1998 and another Rs. 1/33/205 being l5% on l4.5.1999. The respondent thus deposited Rs. 2,22,008 i.e., 25% of the total amount and also a sum of Rs. 4,760 as fee for approval of the construction plan on 19.7.2000. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was bound to hand over the plot in question, however, despite writing several letters to the petitioner they failed to hand over the possession. There was no electricity, no roads, no sewer, no development work was done and not even a single industry was given possession in Sector-58. Zoning Plan had not been approved by the HUDA for Sector 58. It is further alleged that the Revision Petitioner issued a notice dated 30.10.2001 for withdrawal of PLA/Letter of Intent against the respondent. Respondent filed the appeal before the Administrator in 2001 which was dismissed in 2002. The petitioner after deducting Rs. 49,162 refunded the amount of Rs. 1,77,606 out of total amount paid of Rs. 2,22,008.
3. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed to refund Rs. 49,162 which has been deducted by the petitioner illegally, with interest of 12% p.a. on the entire amount till the date of realization and Rs. 20,000 for compensation of mental agony, harassment caused by the petitioner to the respondent and Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses.
4. Petitioner's appeal was partly allowed and the State Commission modified the order to the extent that the compensation of Rs. 20,000 awarded was waived off. At the admission stage Revision Petitioner argued that the respondent did not comply with the formalities laid down in the Letter of Intent within a period of 6 months from the date of receiving the letter of intent. It is the responsibility of the respondent to comply according to the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment. In accordance with the Clause 9 as mentioned in the Letter of Intent the respondent is not entitled to refund of the full amount and that the petitioner cannot be held liable for deficiency in service for the wrongs of the respondent.
5. We have perused the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. Both the Fora below have returned the finding that the relevant Zoning Plan is not available in the office of the District Town Planner/Survey Sub-Division, Faridabad. They clearly observed that without the existence of a Zoning Plan and non-sanctioning of the site plan by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot plead that the respondent had not complied with some conditions of allotment. Further having failed to develop the area with reasonable amenities where the plot in question is situated, the Revision Petitioner is clearly guilty of deficiency of service. We have no reason to depart from the observations made by the lower Fora. They have rightly waived off the compensation of Rs. 20,000 after considering the fact that interest has been awarded. Except mere denial to the pleadings of the respondent, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not brought out any new point based on the record to prove from the documentation that the zonal plan and site plan sanctions were in order. Revision Petition is devoid of merit and hence dismissed.