LEELA JINDAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2006-10-4
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 11,2006

LEELA JINDAL Appellant
VERSUS
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 27.6.2000 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ,Panchkula (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of appellant was accepted and she was awarded compensation of Rs.10,000 for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.1,000 costs of the proceedings.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Industrial plot No. 315 in Industrial Area, Phase -2, Panchkula was initially allotted to Sh. S.C. Bhatt and thereafter it was transferred/reallotted in the name of appellant on 2.4.90 by the respondent vide letter No. 4893, whose photocopy is Annexure C -1. It was next averred that respondent while reallotting the plot got deposited in excess amount of Rs. 65,704.50 from her and also did not sanction the revised plan and further did not release the sewerage connection and occupation certificate, due to which she suffered huge loss and also could not get loan as conveyance deed was not executed despite the fact that she had deposited non -judicial stamp papers of Rs.16,065 along with triplicate copies of the conveyance deed.
(3.)ALLEGING deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.
The respondent contested the complaint and filed written reply. It denied the allegations and stated that the appellant had not paid full price of the plot for execution of the conveyance deed i.e. Rs.1,08,207 were due from her till 8.11.1996 along with interest @ 18% p.a. and further she had not paid extension fee of Rs. 20,720 for non -construction of building within stipulated period and it also violated regulation 20 of Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 and therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It further stated that the appellant had illegally got revised plan sanctioned and occupation certificate issued without payment of extension fee and the violation made in the construction rectified under the garb of ex parte order dated 14.8.1995 which had already been set aside vide order dated 8.11.1996 of Haryana State Commission passed in appeal. It further stated that execution of conveyance deed earlier to 5.9.1997 did not arise. It next stated that prior to 5.9.1997, the appellant had received Rs. 1,08,207 from the respondent in excess which had not been returned. It also stated that there was no deficiency on its part, so, complaint should be dismissed.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.