DOLLY AGGARWAL vs State of Haryana

TWO separate appeals have been filed by the parties before us against order of the State Commission accepting the complaint in part, directing the State of Haryana and Haryana Urban Development Authority to deliver the possession of plot No. 1376, Sector 11-12, P-II Panipat and to pay interest @ 18% on the amount lying deposited with H.U.D.A. after adjusting the balance amount of instalments or enhanced price with interest as laid down by H.U.D.A. along with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Brief facts of the case are that Dolly Aggarwal, the complainant before State Commission, was allotted a plot by H.U.D.A., tentative price of which in December, 1995 was given out as Rs. 1,15,234.60 for which an additional amount of Rs. 53,378.90 was asked for in November, 1991 and further, a sum of Rs. 63,609.85 was asked for in September, 1994 as escalation charges. Against the two later demands the complainant deposited Rs. 58,520/- and was willing to deposit the balance amount in instalments. Thus in all the complainant had paid Rs. 1,73,761.70 (Rs. 1,15,234.60, original tentative price plus Rs. 58,520/-. We find a little difference in figure but is not material at this stage for us). It was the case of the complainant that inspite of payment of the above quoted amount and with an assurance to pay the rest in instalments, position of the plot has not been delivered which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant in her prayer prayed for ordering delivery of possession, award of interest @ 18% on the amount lying with H.U.D.A., Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for cost escalation in construction of the house, Rs. 1 lakh as damages against mental agony and harassment and an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as costs of litigation.

THE State Commission after hearing both the parties and examining the evidence produced before them, the State Commission ordered respondent parties i.e. State of Haryana and H.U.D.A. to deliver the possession of the plot within two months of the date of the order, payment of interest @ 18% on the amount lying with H.U.D.A. after adjusting any outstanding amount of H.U.D.A. and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. F.A. No. 269/2000 : It was argued by the appellant Dolly Aggarwal in the instant case facts clearly bring out the deficiency on the part of the H.U.D.A. She has been subjected to much mental and physical harassment, cost of construction has gone up hence the relief granted to her by the State Commission is not adequate, which should be increased to the level of her prayer before the State Commission. F.A. No. 287/2000 :

It was argued by the learned Counsel for H.U.D.A. that the respondent Dolly Aggarwal had not paid the enhanced cost in time, they were willing to give possession. There has been no deficiency on their part, hence appeal be allowed.

WE have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Facts enumerated earlier are not disputed. It is also not disputed there was illegal temporary construction on this plot and intimation of its removal was given only in 1999. WE find that for no fault on the part of the complainant Dolly Aggarwal, she was deprived of the possession of the plot. If it was encroached upon, it was for HUDA to have it removed in time and not intimate after 14 years (1985-1999) that now the plot is available. There has been clear deficiency on the part of HUDA on this point. Subsequent escalation of price in 1991 and 1994, though not appearing to be equitable on account of the fact, if the possession of the plot had been given in late 1980''s, the question of escalation might not have arisen. We are not going into it on account of the fact that the complainant has paid almost 50% of the escalated price and communicated her willingness to pay the rest in instalments and yet the possession was not delivered. It was not delivered within 30 days of the order of the State Commission dated 28.9.2000, but appears to have been delivered during the pendency of appeals before us. The above facts bring out the bona fides of the parties in perspective. HUDA needs to be more sensitive on equity and public interest. Possession of the plots having been given, the appeals were admitted limited to rate of interest to be awarded. The State Commission awarded payment of interest @ 18% on the amount lying with HUDA. We have recently passed order in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC)=2001 CCC 455 (NS) (R.P. No. 1197 of 1998), upholding award of interest @ 18% to be just and equitable to cover escalation in the cost of construction over the delayed period as well to compensate the consumer. In the light of this order of the Commission, we find no ground to interfere with the orders of the State Commission. Order of the State Commission is upheld. Both the appeals are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by HUDA to complainant Dolly Aggarwal. Appeals dismissed.