HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite parties : "the instant complaint is hereby allowed and the opposite parties are hereby directed : (a) To recalculate/square up the account of the complainant keeping in mind that OP is not entitled to charge compound interest and if the same has been charged it would be refunded along with 12% p. a. interest from the date of deposit till refund and that OP also cannot charge interest more than that mentioned in the allotment letter; (b) To transfer the plot in the name of the proposed transferee; after demand/refund, if there is any after recalculating the same as per Clause (a) above; (c) Also pay a sum of Rs.1,000 as costs of proceedings. Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from today. "

(2.) Put shortly, the facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that the complainant had purchased S. C. O. No.35 located in the Brass Ware Whole Sale and Allied Market, Rewari in open auction for a sum of Rs.4,02,000. He had deposited Rs.41,000 at the time of auction. The balance 15% of the total price of the shop site amounting to Rs.59,500 was to be paid by him upto 20.11.1991. The remaining amount was to be paid in six monthly instalments. The complainant had deposited the above stated 25% of the amount with the opposite parties on 2.12.1991 in terms of the allotment letter bearing Memo No. EO (G)89-194 dated 20.11.1991. In fact, the complainant had deposited Rs.26,187.50 extra under protest. He approached the opposite parties in order to settle his account and to refund the excess amount recovered from him but no action was taken by the officials of the opposite parties in this regard. Further the grievance of the complainant is that no offer of possession of the site was given to him within the reasonable period after completion of the development work in the area where the shop site was located and ultimately the offer of possession was given to him by the opposite parties vide letter bearing Memo No. EO/673 dated 29.6.1994 and that too without completing the development work in the area. He had also approached the opposite parties to give him permission to transfer the shop site in favour of his sister but no permission was given to him. Forced by these circumstances the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking directions against the opposite parties to refund of Rs.26,187.50 along with interest @ 18% per annum; to pay Rs.3,00,000 as compensation on account of no development in the area where the shop site was located and the delay in delivering the possession of the same and on account of loss of business caused to him; to transfer the said shop site in favour of his sister; to pay Rs.10,000 as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000 on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the joint written statement filed it was pleaded that the shop site No.35 was auctioned for Rs.4,02,000 and the complainant had deposited Rs.41,000 at the spot. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.59,500 on 2.12.1991. He committed default in making the payment of the instalments because the first instalment was to be paid after six months from 20.11.1991 but the same was paid by him on 17.11.1992. Show cause notice in this regard was also served to him and penalty amount of Rs.13,714 was imposed on account of non-payment of instalments amount in time. It was further stated that the complainant had to pay Rs.1,37,720 as on 20.7.2001 against the instalment amount and Rs.31,200 on account of extension fee for not raising the construction within the period prescribed. It was further averred that the complainant had applied for transfer permission of the shop site in favour of his sister on 25.5.1998 and the same was granted to him vide letter No.1916 dated 13.6.1998 with certain conditions but as the required conditions were not fulfilled within 60 days, the permission had been withdrawn. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum on scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record rejected the stand of the opposite parties and while accepting the complaint issued the directions in its order dated 15.3.2002. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed.