(1.) Feeling aggrieved against order dated 4.7.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.302 of 2002 'raj Kumar V/s. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another', both the complainant Shri Raj Kumar as well as the O. Ps.- Haryana Urban Development Authority [for short hereinafter referred to as HUDA] filed appeals bearing Nos.590 and 513 both of 2003.
(2.) The main appeal has been filed by the O. Ps.- HUDA impugning order of the District Forum whereas the prayer of the complainant is that the impugned order be modified and the O. Ps. be directed to offer physical possession of the plot which was originally allowed i. e. , Plot No.1048, Sector 11-12, Part-II, Panipat with immediate effect as it is and to charge interest as per the policy of HUDA i. e. , after two years of the offer of possession and to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the deposit from the date of deposit till final payment; to waive of penalties, if any imposed; to pay escalation charges of Rs.1.50 lacs and to pay Rs.0.50 lac towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.
(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for HUDA Mrs. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate is that the District Forum committed an error in holding deficiency in service on the part of HUDA and in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- for escalation in the costs of construction and in assessing the costs of litigation at Rs.3,000/-. It is, however, not disputed that Plot No.1048, Sector 11-12, Part-II, Panipat was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 13.12.1985 but the possession could not be offered to the complainant as there was litigation pending in respect of the plot allotted and the development works in the area could not be carried out due to pending litigation. HUDA decided to allot an alternative plot in Sector 12, P-II, Panipat if available or in Sector 24 by way of draw, which was conducted on 27.8.1997 and in this way, the complainant was allotted Plot No.34-SP, Sector 12, Panipat vide memo No.13290 dated 30.12.1997 as per HUDA policy. It has been further contended that the District Forum was in error in directing HUDA to charge the price of the alternative plot which was the price of the original plot and contended that the price of the alternative plot has been charged strictly as per HUDA policy and the same was contractually binding on the complainant.