KRISHAN LAL Vs. HUDA
LAWS(NCD)-2020-12-37
NCDRC
Decided on December 24,2020

KRISHAN LAL Appellant
VERSUS
HUDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.Viswanath,J. - (1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ) has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 11.05.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short State Commission ) in First Appeal No. 569 of 2006 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) The case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that he was allotted Plot No. 152, Sector- 31, Urban Estate Faridabad, having an area of 359 sq. yards, vide allotment letter No.A/31/99/95 dated 25.01.1999. Possession of the said Plot was offered to the Complainant on 05.05.2000. The Plot was, however, surrendered by the Complainant, vide his application dated 21.11.2000 and sought refund of the amount deposited by him. The amount deposited by the Complainant was refunded to him on 16.02.2001 after deducting 10%, as per the policy of HUDA. The Complainant stated that he surrendered the Plot as parks, schools, market, roads, sewerage, street lights, drainage system and other basic amenities were not provided. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted an application to the Respondents on 06.09.2005, requesting them to allot the plot in question or an alternate plot to the Complainant, but the Respondents failed to do so. Claiming this to be deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer: - a) to handover the vacant physical possession of the alternative plot to the complainant in the same Sector i.e. Sector 31 Faridabad or in adjoining other developed sector in Faridabad at the same rate on which the above said plot in question was allotted to the complainant, without charging any penalty or interest or any other amount etc. from the complainant. In case of excess area of the alternative plot, the complainant be allowed to deposit the price of the excess area, if any, of the alternative plot, at the rate on which the original plot was allotted to complainant, with the respondents, without any interest, penalty etc. b) to pay the amount of interest @ 18% p.a. and penalty already received by the respondents from the complainant on account of delayed in respect of plot in question. c) the respondents also be directed to adjust 10% deducted amount towards the price of the plot to be allotted to the complainant and to pay interest @ 18% per annum on that amount w.e.f. date of deduction. d) The respondents may also kindly be ordered to calculate the whole amount as prayed for, on overhaul the account of complainant and then adjust the whole amount towards the price of plot now to be allotted and balance payment whatsoever is recovered, the schedule for that be prepared for payment of the same in easy installments. e) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, agony, harassment by the respondents to the complainant, by not providing the basic amenities in the area where the plot in question situates and by not delivering the possession of the same within time; f) to pay to the complainant the escalation price on account of cost of building material etc. g) to pay to complaint Rs 5500/- as litigation charges. h) or any other relief, which this Hon ble Forum deems fit and proper also be awarded in favour of complainant against the respondents.
(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties/Respondents stating that once the Complainant had surrendered the Plot allotted to him and he had received the refund, he ceased to be a Consumer of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that as refund was received by the Complainant on 16.02.2001 and the Complaint was filed in November 2005, the Complaint was barred by time. On merits, the Opposite Parties contended that possession of the Plot was offered to the Complainant after completion of development works by providing requisite basic amenities such as roads, electricity, water supply and sewerage, but the Complainant instead of taking possession of the Plot, surrendered the same and therefore, denied all allegations of deficiency in service.;


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