HUDA & ANR. vs INDRA SOBTI

This revision petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 7.12.2009 passed in first appeals No. 2926 of 2002 and 536 of 2003 by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, by which the State Commission dismissed appeal No. 536 of 2003 filed by the OP and accepted the appeal of the complainant and modified the order of District Forum, Panchkula in appeal No. 2926 of 2002 filed by the complainant.

The relevant brief facts are that the complainant, Ms. Indra Sobti was allotted plot No. 435-P, Sector 2, Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 18.11.1998. The complainant deposited entire consideration of the plot as per the payment schedule of OPs. However, the OPs have not developed the area where the plot was located and did not hand over the possession of the plot even after 3 1/2 years of the allotment. Therefore, the complainant could not raise the construction over her plot. Due to this, she sought refund of deposited amount, which was accepted by the OPs and deducted 10% of the tentative price of the plot, as per their policy.

Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Faridabad (herein after referred as ''the District Forum'') and alleged that HUDA cannot deduct any amount as surrender of plot, which was not proper for possession. Hence, it was a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

The OPs resisted the complaint by filing the written version and took the plea that as per clause 7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be delivered after completion of development works in that area and the same was in the progress. Thus, it was not a deficiency in service.

After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence, the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the OPs to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 10 % per annum w.e.f. respective deposits till payment and Rs.5,000/- as mental agony and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, both the parties filed appeals before Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission''), the complainant has filed appeal No. 2926 of 2002 for enhancement of compensation whereas the OPs filed appeal No. 536 of 2003 for setting aside the impugned order. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by OP/petitioner and allowed the appeal of the complainant by modifying the order of District forum and allowed the interest @ 18 % per annum on the refund of deposited amount.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. After our thoughtful consideration, the main controversy revolves around the question ''whether the OPs have developed the area in which the plot for complainant was allotted and whether the complainant could raise construction over that plot or not ? We have perused the report of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division No. 1, Faridabad dated 28.6.2002. It is reproduced as under:

i) Roads 60 % completed upto WBN.

ii) Water supply 50 % completed.

iii) Sewerage 80 % completed .

iv) Electrification work not started till date.

The work is likely to be completed by 31.3.2003.

Thus, it is clear that almost after 3 1/2 years, the development works in the said area were not complete in totality. The allotment letter describes that delivery of possession will be done on completion of development work. We are of the view that ideally the possession of the plot would be delivered within 2 years from the date of allotment letter. This view dovetails from catena of judgments on the subject. The complainant has not surrendered the plot voluntarily but she was compelled to do so under the prevailing circumstances that the OPs have not completed the development works. Thus, HUDA has no right to deduct any amount from the deposits of complainant but the complainant in our view was entitled for interest. It cannot be disputed that HUDA recovered interest on the delayed payment @ 18 % per annum. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant also deserves to receive interest at the same rate, which HUDA recovered from the allottees in case of default in the installments.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, we find that there was deficiency in service on the part of HUDA. Also, there is no material irregularity in the well-reasoned order of the State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.