HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MEENAKSHI GOYAL

THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, which in turn upheld the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which lead to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant was allotted a plot by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter called ''HUDA'') on 24.8.1991 at a tentative price of 1,60,303/- and she deposited a sum of Rs. 1,48,337/- and the possession of the plot was to be delivered within a reasonable period of three years as mentioned in the circular issued by the HUDA. Since the HUDA did not give her possession of the plot, she knocked the doors of the District Forum claiming delivery of possession of plot after development work within a specified period, to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of application, to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- for escalation of cost of material and mental agony/harassment and to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of judgment till the date of realisation.

THE District Forum after having heard both the parties directed the HUDA to, (i) deliver possession of the plot after completing the development work within one year; (ii) pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by her prior to 1.1.1995 w.e.f. 1.1.1995 and on the amount deposited by her thereafter from the date of deposit till the delivery of possession of the aforesaid plot; (iii) to pay Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation on account of escalation on the cost of construction, material, etc.; (iv) to pay Rs. 25,000/- by by way of compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to her; and (v) to pay Rs. 500/- way of costs of proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the HUDA went in appeal before the State Commission which affirmed the order of the District Forum. Hence, the opposite party is petitioner before us. Heard Mr. Ravindra Bana, learned Counsel appearing of the HUDA and Mr. C.L. Goyal, authorised representative appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission.

We find from the record that an alternative plot was offered, but it is not clear whether physical possession thereof was given or not. We have already held in the case of HUDA v. R.P. Chawla, Revision Petition Nos. 547 and 548 of 1997, that the alternative plot has to be offered at the price at which the original plot was allotted. In the light of that decision, we hold that an alternative plot, if it was not handed over or taken by the complainant/respondent, shall be charged at the same price at which the plot originally allotted was sought to be charged. Moreover, in the case of HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, Revision Petition No. 1197 of 1998, wherein we have examined in extenso the question as to what rate and upto what period interest would be payable on account of undue delay/delayed allotment of flat(s) or house(s) or plot(s) and held that in such cases award of interest at the rate of 18% p.a reasonable and equitable which rate of interest would take care of the interest on the amount deposited by the complainant, escalation in the cost of construction, compensation and harassment and mental agony. In view of what has been held by this Commission in the above referred decision, we disallow the directions given by the District Forum which were later on upheld by the State Commission, as to payment of Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation, on account of escalation in the cost of construction, material, etc. to pay Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and mental agony to her and delete the same while we retain the directions of the District Forum for payment of interest at the rate of 18% and to pay Rs. 500/- by way of costs. We further direct that in case the possession of the alternative plot has not so far been delivered, the same should be handed over within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Revision Petition disposed of.