Darshan Singh vs State of Haryana

COMPLAINANT Darshan Singh of Panchkula has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint alleging deficiency in service against Haryana Urban Development Authority in the matter of allotment, delivery of possession resulting into cancellation of allotment etc.

ACCORDING to the complainant plot No. 113-P in Sector 9-A, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainant by HUDA on 12th July, 1993. Later on, the complainant asked HUDA to cancel the allotment and refund the earnest money by his application dated 28th July, 1993. When HUDA failed to act upon the request for cancellation, the complainant withdrew his request for cancellation. Despite that HUDA cancelled the allotment and forfeited the earnest money amounting to Rs. 47,964/- deposited by the complainant. The complainant approached the Authorities time and again for withdrawing the cancellation of allotment and for restoring the plot No. 113-P, Sector 9-A, Gurgaon, which was more than Rs. 5 lacs in value but HUDA declined to restore the allotment and to deliver possession of the same to the complainant; nor was the amount forfeited refunded to the complainant. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, the present complaint has been filed. In their written reply, HUDA pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant should have gone before the Civil Court or should have resorted to other statutory proceedings under the HUDA Act by way of appeal or revision etc. On merits, however, there is no dispute with the factual position and the same stands almost admitted.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record we are of the considered view, that there is merit in the complaint as deficiency in service on the part of HUDA has been fully established. Once the complainant had asked the HUDA Authorities to cancel the allotment and to refund the amount deposited by him, HUDA did not oblige him by acting upon the request; but soon thereafter at their own cancelled the allotment by forfeiting the amount on the pretext that the complainant failed to deposit the necessary instalments as demand by HUDA. There was no warrant for such an arbitrary action, as impugned action of HUDA amounted to not only forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the complainant but forfeiting the plot also. Therefore, the complaint certainly deserves to be allowed.

TO be fair to HUDA, it must be noticed that so far as their objection regarding maintainability of the complaint for resorting to the remedy before the Civil Court or to any other law is concerned, the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and consumer jurisdiction can certainly be invoked for seeking redress of the grievance of the complainant, which on the face of it amounts to deficiency in service. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and HUDA Authorities are directed to restore the allotment as well as possession of the plot No. 113-P, Sector 9-A, Gurgaon to the complainant, which was allotted to him on 12th July, 1993. The complainant is directed to pay the instalments towards price of the plot. upto date with usual interest in accordance with the policy of HUDA. This shall be done within one month. The complainant shall also be entitled to costs of litigation which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. Complaint allowed.