HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HUDA) vs VINOD KUMAR SRIHAN AND VIVEK KUMAR SRIHAN

APPELLANT, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

VERY briefly facts leading to filing this complaint were that the respondent/complainant applied for being allotted one Kanal plot through draw of lots held by HUDA on 9.3.1986. The complainant was successful in draw of lots and they were allotted plot No. 95, but when the possession of this plot was not delivered to the respondent as it was under litigation, the respondents/complainants approached HUDA for allotting alternative plot. As a result of this, a plot in 89 Sector 9A Gurgaon was offered on 24.5.1996 at a much higher rate. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint in following terms : "(i) to allot an alternative plot to the complainants measuring 500 sq. yards in any of the Sectors 22, 23, 23-A, as it was in these sectors that the plot was originally advertised for the allotment to the complainants, and it was for these sectors draw of lots were held; (ii) to charge from the complainants only the price which was prevailing at the time of original allotment; (iii) to pay to the complainant interest at the rate of 12% on the entire amounts deposited by them from 19.5.1986; (iv) to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction; (v) to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation for monetary loss and mental agony suffered by him; and (vi) to pay Rs. 2,000 to the complainants as costs of litigation."

Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. As is obvious from the earlier narration of the case, the originally allotted plot could not be given to the complainant because of litigation for which the complainant cannot be faulted. Alternative plot was offered in the year 1996 but at a much higher rate. As per settled law of this Commission, and also by now, by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in such circumstances, the Housing Authority must allot alternative plot at the original price of the sector and not at the prevailing price. We see that as far as relief Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are concerned they are as per law settled by this Commission and the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

THE only point of controversy before us relates to Rs. 2,00,000 granted as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction. On our direction both the parties have filed the Current Schedule of Rates (CSR) as it prevailed in 1985-86 as also in 2005 when the possession of the plot was handed over to the respondent/complainant. Learned Counsel for both the parties were candid enough to admit that if these rates were to govern/determine the cost-escalation then the amount of escalation will work out to be much more than Rs. 2,00,000. The Hon''ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with such a case and in that case they had remanded the case back to the District Forum to arrive at the amount of escalation keeping in view the CPWD''s rates prevailing at the time of original allotment and the final allotment/date of giving possession, learned Counsel for both the parties in the present case, with a view to settle the case, and to bring the litigation to an end, conceded that there may not be necessity to remand back the case as the respondent/complainant is satisfied with Rs. 2,00,000 awarded by the State Commission and HUDA could only be loser, were we to remand the case for working out the escalation cost on the basis of CSR. We are also conscious of the fact that respondents/complainants have not filed an appeal, leaving us with a clear impression that they were/are satisfied with the relief granted on this account. Since based on CSR, the escalation cost will work out much more than Rs. 2 lakh granted by the State Commission and in the light of views expressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, we see no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed.

PARTIES are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.