Dharam Pal Singh vs ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA, KAITHAL

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP Huda. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a plot in July, 1993, possession of which was offered in July, 1996. Area was not developed for want of which construction could not be taken up. Main grievance is that no electricity was available on the site. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent, the petitioner filed a complaint praying for a direction to the respondent for providing all amenities on the spot, provide electric connection and to pay the interest on the deposited amount as well as compensation and cost.

THE District Forum after hearing the parties directed the respondent/O.P. not to charge interest on the balance instalments due, not to charge any extension fee, pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service occasioned by delay in delivery of possession and Rs. 5,000/- for mental harassment and mental agony. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the State Commission after hearing the parties found no delay in delivery of possession and waived off Rs. 30,000/- given as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and harassment, hence this petition. It is argued by the petitioner, that there was delay in handing over the possession during which cost of construction has gone up. State Commission erred in deleting the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum which needs to be restored. The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the order of the State Commission is just and equitable and call for no interference.

We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. Plots were allotted in July, 1993 and possession was given in May, 1996. We are in full agreement with the State Commission that this is not a case of delayed delivery of plot. As far as electricity connection is concerned, it was not within HUDA to do so. It was for the State Electricity Board to provide electric connection. Respondent cannot be faulted for this. The order of the State Commission is as per law on the subject and calls for no interference in our revisional jurisdiction. Thus petition is devoid of merits, hence dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.