HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ATUL DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5. 10. 2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, following conclusion has been drawn:

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had applied for the allotment of the residential plot to the opposite party and had deposited Rs. 24,115 on 4. 5. 1992 along with his application. He was allotted plot No. 63 measuring 13 x 25 mtrs. located in Sector-4, HUDA, Kurukshetra on a tentative price of Rs. 2,41,150, as per allotment letter bearing Memo No. 962 dated 10. 2. 1993. Thereafter, he paid Rs. 36,172. 50 so as to constitute 25% of the total tentative price. The balance price of Rs. 1,80,862. 50 was to be paid in six instalments each of Rs. 30,143. 75. The complainant paid four instalments of Rs. 30,143. 75 each on 10. 2. 1994, 10. 2. 1995, 9. 2. 1996 and 5. 2. 1997 respectively as detailed in para No. 4 of the complaint. He also paid the additional price of Rs. 3,710 for the increase in area of the plot from 325 sq. mtrs. to 330 sq. mtrs. on 18. 6. 1996. In terms of Clause 6 of the allotment letter the possession of the allotted plot was to be offered after completion of the development work in the area. The complainant received a letter dated 11. 12. 1995 whereby he was asked to take possession of the said plot. It is the case of the complainant that no development work in the area such like laying of sewerage, water line, electricity and sheets had been completed and for that reason the complainant did not approach the opposite party for taking possession of the said plot. He also could not deposit two instalments of Rs. 30,143. 75 each and in this manner the total amount of Rs. 60,287. 50 was payable to him towards the instalments amount. The grievance of the complainant is that he had approached the opposite party to develop the area but no action was taken by it, rather, he was served with a demand as per letter bearing Memo No. 11033 dated 5. 10. 1999 for Rs. 1,23,931 which included Rs. 1,17,330 as payment of instalments due from him and Rs. 6,600 as extension fee. In addition they had demanded the penalty amount of Rs. 11,733 for which show cause notice was also issued to him. Terming the above stated demand made as illegal, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite party to develop the area where the plot in question is located, by providing the necessary amenities; to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount from 4. 5. 1992 till the date of payment; to hand over the possession of the plot to him after receipt of two instalments amount and further to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him.

(3.) THE complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed a preliminary objection was taken with regard to the complaint being hopelessly barred by time under Section 24a of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986); that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint and that he had concealed the material facts in the complaint because he was a defaulter of the instalments amount. On merits, it was maintained that the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant on 11. 12. 1995 after carrying out the necessary development in the area where the allotted plot is located and as he had failed to take possession of the plot, he was liable to pay interest @ 15% on the balance amount. Thus, they justified the demand made in terms of the above stated notice issued to him. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On the basis of above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint as per order dated 5. 10. 2000 noticed above. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed.