HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RANJIT KUMAR NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following direction has been given to the appellant-opposite parties :

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the case are that plot No. 379 measuring 300 sq. mtrs. located in Sector 16, Panchkula was allotted to the complainant as per allotment letter dated 11.1.1978. The complainant had paid the entire sale price to the opposite parties and conveyance-deed was also executed in his favour. Thereafter, he had applied for the permission to construct the house which was granted by the opposite parties as per letter dated 12.4.1993. The case of the complainant is that he could not carry out the construction and for that reason he applied for re-validation of the site plan on 10.11.1997 and deposited Rs. 3,955 and Rs. 2,788 as extension fee in the year 1998. Thereafter, he made another deposit of Rs. 1,900 and Rs. 800 on 20.9.2000. However, the opposite parties informed him to make the deposit of Rs. 54,600 as extension fee upto the year 2000 and this demand was further followed as per letter dated 9.11.2000 issued by the opposite parties. Challenging the legality of the demand made, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint. He also claimed Rs. 3 lacs as compensation on account of escalation cost and interest @ 10% per annum on the amount deposited against the plot for the intervening period from the date of the sanction of the site plan till re-validation of the building plan was not granted.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant never visited the office of the opposite parties in respect of the deposit of the extension fee which was demanded from the complainant as per letter No. 8198 and in fact no intimation was given to them that he had made the deposit of the demanded amount on 6.5.1998 in the bank. As the necessary intimation had not been given, the opposite parties had made the demand from the complainant before revalidation of the building plan could be given to him. At the same time it was admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 1900-1800 as revalidation charges plus malba security. It was further averred that as per HUDA policy dated 21.10.1993, the complainant was required to deposit extension fee in time. Thus, they justified the demand made of Rs. 54,600 from the complainant and prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum found no substance in the version of the opposite parties and issued the directions to the opposite parties as per order dated 13.11.2001 noticed earlier. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the opposite parties-appellants have filed the present appeal.