KRISHAN LAL KALRA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 29.11.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission'), petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) Brief facts are that initially plot No. 1349-P, Sector-11 and 12 Part-I, Urban Estate, Panipat was allotted to Smt. Bala wife of Lakhmi Chand by the respondents/o.ps, vide allotment letter dated 9/12.12.1985. Later on, Smt. Saroj Bala transferred the said plot in the name of petitioner/complainant on 28.5.1987 after receiving Rs.26,407.70P and all the future installments were to be paid by the petitioner. The plot was transferred in the name of the petitioner, vide re-allotment letter no. 6987 dated 21.5.2007 with the subject of re-allotment of plot No.164-P, Sector-12. Petitioner has stepped into the shoes of Smt. Saroj Bala on 28.5.1987 for all intends and purposes and became the consumer of respondents. The original plot no. 1349-P was under dispute, so fresh draw was held on 07.07.2005. In lieu of said plot no. 1349-P, a new plot no. 164-P, Sector-12 was allotted in the name of the original allottee, vide letter no. 9061 dated 01.08.2005. Tentative price of the plot no. 164-P was fixed by the OPs at Rs.1,05,601.70P. The original allottee paid Rs.9,603/- on account of application money and Rs. 16,804.70P, at the time of allotment of the plot and remaining amount was to be paid in installments. The entire payment of the plot has been deposited by the petitioner but despite that, the possession of the plot has neither been offered nor delivered to him by the respondents. Respondents have been illegally recovering interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the petitioner on due amount of installments to the tune of Rs.5,55,075.30p. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondents have no legal right to claim or recover any interest from the original allottee/petitioner and petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him by way of interest.

(3.) Respondents in their written statement took preliminary objection that petitioner has got no locus standi to file the complaint. It is stated that plot no. 1349-P was allotted to Smt. Saroj Bala, but in view of the dispute of that plot, another plot no 164-P was allotted in her name. It is further stated that after completing the due formalities, possession of the plot in question was offered to the petitioner, vide letter no.13033 dated 18.09.2007. It is denied that respondents have recovered interest illegally from Smt. Saroj Bala. The petitioner is not entitled to refund of any amount of interest. Respondents also denied any deficiency in service on its part.