HUDA vs Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta

THIS appeal is by way of second round of litigation before this Commission. On an earlier occasion; the HUDA had filed an appeal being F.A. No. 41/99 before this Commission feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.1998 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case No. 58/96. This Commission disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 21.4.2006 and remanded back the matter to the State Commission only on limited question in regard to the escalation of price due to intervening period during which the actual vacant physical possession was not handed over to the complainant/respondent. The observations made in the said order by this Commission are as unden - "Insofar as relief in Clauses 4 and 6 is concerned, it is covered by the judgment in the case of "Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh", II (2004) CPJ 12 (State Commission), Consequently, the complainant shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. and would not be entitled to Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation.

The only point on which we feel that the matter should be remanded to the State Commission would relate to escalation in the cost of construction. In absence of any evidence by either party, we find it difficult to decide the matter and for this limited purpose the matter is remanded to State Commission. Parties shall be at liberty to file the site plan, CPWD/PWD rates at the relevant period and the evidence which the parties may wish to lead in regard to escalation in the cost of construction. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for this limited purpose on 11.8.2006.

The direction Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stand confirmed. Rate of interest is reduced from 15% p.a. to 12% p.a since the possession has been ordered to be delivered and the only contention is that the possession has been given on paper by the respondent but actual physical possession has not been given. The complainant shall comply the condition 5 to adjust the excess amount towards the demand of enhancement in price if any payable by the complainant on account of land acquisition or the reminder may be refunded to the complainant. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. "

THE impugned order has been made by the State Commission in terms of the directions given by this Commission in the said order. By the impugned order, the State Commission going by the material produced on record, i.e., the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and affidavit of Mr. Narinder Singh Yadav, Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad and after recording the statements of the Counsel appearing for the parties separately has made the following order: "Thus, in view of the affidavits submitted by both the parties and the statements of both the Counsel for the parties recorded today, the compensation on account of escalation in the price of construction is assessed at Rs. 6,14,128 which shall be payable by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Both the parties shall be bound by their statements. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. "

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the HUDA has again come in appeal before us. There is delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal and an application for condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the appellant. We have considered the grounds/reasons set up in the said application and we find that the said grounds/reasons are routine and do not, in any way, explain the undue delay in filing the appeal before this Commission. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in this case, more particularly so, when we have found that the order passed by the State Commission is entirely based on the affidavit filed by the Estate Office, HUDA, Faridabad itself and the statements of the Counsel for HUDA recorded by the State Commission. In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case viz., that on two occasions the HUDA has allotted and offered the possession of the plots which were not vacant, the plot offered on the first occasion was in occupation of a factory owner and the alternative plot offered was also not fit and ready to be delivered and the State Commission has accepted the case of the complainant which was affirmed by this Commission. HUDA should not have further agitated this matter before us. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and the application for condonation of delay with cost of Rs. 25,000 out of which Rs. 5,000 shall be paid to the respondent and the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000 shall be deposited with the "NCDRC Consumer Legal Aid A/c" by the appellant HUDA within a period of four weeks. First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.