HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs V.K.SOIN

THIS appeal has been directed by the opposite party against order dated 6.1.2000 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), whereby the complaint of respondent (complainant) was accepted and the appellant was directed to pay interest to the respondent on the amount of Rs. 1,68,000 as per HUDA rules and regulations and to charge the balance "sale consideration from the respondent along with interest on delayed payment as per rules and regulations and further to overhaul the account of the respondent in the above said manner, within one month and also it was ordered that after receipt of the balance amount in lump sum, appellant would hand over possession of the plot in question within one month. However, parties were left to bear their own costs.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent (complainant) was allotted plot No. 150, measuring 148.67 sq. yds. for shop-cum-flat in Sector-37, Faridabad at the cost of Rs. 4,32,000, being the highest bidder in open auction on 29.11.1988. He had paid Rs. 43,200 being 10% of the bid money on the fall of hammer and further paid Rs. 64,800 being 15% of the bid money within 30 days from the date of acceptance of allotment. It was next averred that the balance amount was to be paid in eight half-yearly instalments. Accordingly he paid Rs. 60,000 on 7.9.1989 and in this manner, he paid total amount of Rs. 1,68,000, being 40% of the total sale price. However, the possession was not delivered to him which was to be delivered on completion of development work. He had asked the appellant several times to give possession but no satisfactory reply was received.

It was further averred that he had received notice dated 14.1.1992 under Section 17(1)(2) of HUDA Act, 1977 requiring him to show cause as to why penalty of Rs. 30,746 be not imposed upon him, being 10% of the balance amount of Rs. 3,07,465 as per terms and conditions of the letter of allotment but the appellant was not entitled to charge interest from him on the balance amount as possession had not been offered to him and it could charge interest from the date of offer of possession. Ultimately appellant demanded Rs. 6,95,265 which was illegal.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, the present complaint was filed. Appellant contested the complaint and stated that the development work was completed in all respects and basic amenities like road, sewerage, water line, electric line had already been provided at the time of allotment and possession was offered to the respondent by making specific mention thereof in the letter of allotment, so, respondent was liable to pay interest on the balance amount in terms of the letter of allotment. Since, he failed to make payment of instalments as per schedule, so, notice under Section 17(1)(ii) of the HUDA Act was issued and he had even filed appeal before the Administrator, HUDA which was rejected.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 6.1.2000 accepted the complaint as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Counsel for respondent Mr. V.K. Bali and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs. 1,68,000 had been paid to the appellant. This comes to 40% of the total sale price of Rs. 4,32,000. IT is further an admitted fact that plot No. 150 measuring 148.1967 sq. yards meant for consideration of shop-cum-flat in Sector-37, Faridabad was allotted to him in an open auction on 29.11.1988. The contention of respondent is that the appellant was to offer possession of the said plot after making development but development had not been made and possession was not offered within a reasonable time, although, about 8 years had elapsed before filing the complaint. The case of the appellant on the other hand is that development work was completed before auction and basic amenities like roads, sewerage, water line and electric line were provided and even offer of possession was made in the allotment letter itself and as such respondent was liable to pay interest on the balance amount in terms of letter of allotment. The photocopy of the allotment letter Annexure-A shows that it is mentioned in Clause 6 that the possession of the site would be offered to the respondent on completion of the development work in the area. However, after the signatures of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad a note has been mentioned that the possession of the site could be obtained on any working day from this office and 18% interest shall be charged in case of delayed payment. The said note is not signed by any official/officer of HUDA. This note is in direct conflict with Clause No. 6 of the allotment letter. It is not mentioned in it that the development had taken place. This letter is dated 29.11.1988. The letter dated 10.9.1999 bearing memo No. 728 issued by Sub-Divisional Engineer to the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad shows that the street light (electric work) around SCF No. 150, Sector-37 , Faridabad stands completed on 15.9.1998 . The letter dated 24.9.1997 bearing memo No. 9045 issued by the Executive Engineer, HUDA to Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad shows that work of sewerage line completed in August, 93 while construction of road/parking i.e. approach road to plot No. 150 was completed in April, 1997. The letter dated 24.9.1997 sent by SDE to Executive Engineer, HUDA shows that sewerage line was completed on 30.8.1993. Therefore, the amenities were provided from August, 93 to September, 98. This gives lie to the note of Estate Officer mentioned in the allotment letter that the possession of the site could be obtained on any working day. It was mere a paper transaction offer as the development work was not complete in that area. Hence, the plea of OP in para-5 of the written reply that the development work was complete at the time of auction is not correct. The appellant has intentionally made false statement. No letter has been placed on file to prove that after the development work had been completed, the appellant was offered possession. Hence, documentary evidence on file proves that the development work had not been completed till 15.9.1998 and for this reason, the appellant could not hand over possession and therefore, the order has been rightly made by the District Consumer. We concur with the reasoning given therein.

Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.