HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Suman Bala

HARYANA Urban Development Authority has come up in appeal against the order dated 13th January, 1998 passed by learned District Forum, Ambala, whereby complaint of Smt. Suman Bala w/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Moudgil, alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in the matter of refund of the amount deposited by her, has been allowed by directing HUDA to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from the date of deposit till its payment alongwith Rs. 500/- as costs of proceedings.

COMPLAINANT had approached the District Forum, Ambala with the grievance that even though she had deposited 10% of the tentative price of the plot No. 1401-SP, Sector 10, Urban Estate, Ambala City allotted to her on 30th August, 1991 and she had also deposited Rs. 44,670/- on 26th September, 1991 followed by another sum of Rs. 36,162/- by way of 1st Instalment, yet HUDA failed to develop the plot within a reasonable period and to offer possession of the same to the complainant. Due to this deficiency in service on the part of HUDA the complainant could not raise construction on the plot and for this reason she claimed refund of the amount alongwith 24% interest and compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. In reply, HUDA pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had failed to deposit the remaining instalments. And so far as the delivery of possession was concerned it was offered at to her on 25th April, 1997 the date of institution of the complaint before the District Forum. The learned District Forum after examining the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion, that so far as the offer of possession on 25th April, 1997 was concerned HUDA had not developed the plot even till then and it was only on paper that the possession was being offered of a developed plot. In these circumstances, the prayer of the complainant for the refund of the amount deposited by her was reasonable and deserves to be allowed.

In the appeal before us, learned Counsel for HUDA has vehemently contended that once the area had been developed and possession offered to her on 25th April, 1997 the complainant was bound to accept the same and question of refund of the amount deposited by her did not arise. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as the allotment having been made in 1991, it was for the first time on 25th April, 1997 i.e. after about six years when the complaint was filed before the District Forum, offer of possession was given to the complainant. A firm finding has been given by the learned District Forum that even upto that date, the plot had not been fully developed though a period of about six years had already expired. Under the circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum, which is detailed and well-reasoned one and deserves to be upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. _____________