HUDA vs Desh Rattan Dutta

HARYANA Urban Development Authority, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

PETITIONER allotted a plot No. 291, Sector-2, Faridabad to Smt. Kamla Sharma (hereinafter referred to ''Original Allottee'') vide allotment letter dated 18.11.1998 on the tentative price of Rs. 7,89,360. Respondent/complainant purchased the said plot from the original allottee. Petitioner permitted the transfer and reallotted the said plot to the respondent/complainant vide its letter dated 28.1.1999. Possession of the plot was not offered to the respondent for a period of more than four years. The offer of possession of the plot was to be given after carrying out the development works. As the development works were not carried out, the petitioner did not issue possession letter to the respondent for more than four years. Respondent after waiting for more than 4 years, applied for refund of the entire amount deposited by him along with the interest. Petitioner refunded the amount after deducting 10% of the total tentative price. Respondent being aggrieved filed the complaint before the District Forum.

DISTRICT Forum vide its order dated 19.7.2004 allowed the complaint and gave the following directions: "1. The respondent is ordered to refund the amount to the complainant, the amount which the respondent has deducted from the deposited amount of the complainant being 10% of the total tentative price of the plot No. 291, Sector-2, Faridabad, along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. its deposit till its realization. 2. The respondent is also ordered to pay interest @ 12% on the total deposit of the complainant which the complainant has deposited towards the price of the plot in question w.e.f. its deposit till the payment. 3. The respondent is further ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 on account of mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant."

BEING aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal.

THE plot was re-allotted to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions on which it was allotted to the original allottee. As per Clause 7 of the allotment letter, petitioner was to offer possession of the plot after completing development work. In the present case, the petitioner could not offer possession of the plot as it had not carried out the development work for more than four years. Respondent being in need of money requested the petitioner to refund the amount, which the petitioner refunded after deducting 10% of the tentative price of the plot. By the impugned order, the Fora below have directed the petitioner to refund the amount of 10% which was deducted by it, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

WE agree with the view taken by the Fora below. Petitioner after having received the sum of Rs. 7,89,360 had failed to issue possession letter for more than four years. The respondent could not be expected to wait for an indefinite period for letter of offer of possession. The respondent being in need of money asked for the refund of amount. Respondent did not ask for the refund of the amount voluntarily, rather he was compelled to do so as the petitioner had failed to offer the possession even after 41/2 years because it had not carried out the development work. Respondent was constrained to ask for refund for the default committed by the petitioner in not issuing the letter of possession for more than 41/2 years.

IN these circumstances, the respondent cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission and commission of the petitioner. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed.