HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Vimlesh

ON a complaint instituted by Smt. Vimlesh w/o Shri Bharat Bhushan, resident of Chandigarh, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, ordered on 27.8.96 refund of the deposited sum of Rs. 57,525/which was 25% of the price together with interest @ 18% p.a. payable from the date of original deposit i.e., 15.3.91. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted by Haryana Urban Development Authority now in Sector 6, Panchkula.

THE main grievance of Smt. Vimlesh had been that she applied for a residential plot of 14 marlas in Sector 23, Sonepat and deposited a sum of Rs. 23,020/and Rs. 34,505/on 15.3.91 and 29.8.91 respectively but there had been no development whatsoever and the Haryana Urban Development Authority was unable to deliver the possession of the plot for about a period of four years and it compelled her to institute the complaint on 17.7.95, In para 6 of reply filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority on 15.U.95, it has been averred that at the time of depositing the money the complainant had the knowledge that it would take a few years for the development of the site and that even now she is aware that work at the site was in progress. This conclusively shows that Sector 23 at Sonepat was not developed and ready for delivery of plots at the time reply was filed and even at the time the impugned order was passed. A legal plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the plot was to be allotted at Sonepat and Haryana Urban Development Authority is maintaining its office at Panchkula which is in Haryana, the Forum at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction at the time the complaint was instituted. We find that the address of the respondent was mentioned as SCO No. 841, Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh and the respondent was served at its address and appeared in the District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Besides this there was a notification published on 13.1.77 issued by Governor of Haryana which contains specific mention that Haryana Urban Development Authority shall have its headquarter at Chandigarh. Any notification to the contrary has not been brought to the notice of the Forum and even this Commission. Thus the plea of territorial jurisdiction raised on behalf of the appellant has no merit. It is undisputed that the amount in question remained with the appellant and it had failed to deliver the possession of the plot for a long period as seen above. It shall be useful to refer to the undisputed findings on fact arrived at by the District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh and it is reproduced as under: "In the instant case complainant had applied for allotment of the plot in the beginning of 1991. Some four months after the application complainant was allotted the plot somewhere in the middle of 1991 but till date he has not been delivered the possession although more than six years have passed. We see no reasonable prospectus of delivery of possession even in the near future. Complainant has rightly pointed out that delay in the delivery of the possession is resulting into postnement of the construction over the plot and with each day passing the price of the building material is going up. Presumably while applying for a plot complainant and other applicants may have thought that they will be delivered the possession within a couple of years. The inordinate delay in the delivery of the possession of plots surely tantamounts to deficiency in the service of opposite parties. Opposite parties are an instrumentality of a welfare State. Their policies and actions should serve as model for the private construction companies. We are sorry to observe that opposite parties at least alive to the rights of the citizens rather they are out to exploit the needy people and taken them for a ride. Opposite parties had no business to acquire land which is likely to take several years for its development. If at all opposite parties choose to go in for such land, they should not float any scheme till the development is complete and they are in a position to offer possession of the plots to the prospective allottees within a reasonable period."

We are of the view that the case now in hand is one of gross deficiency and the plea that there was no term and condition for payment of interest has no merit. After considering all these aspects there is no merit for forfeiture of 10% or for reduction in the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.

ANNOUNCED. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed with costs.