HUDA vs Krishan Kumar

-CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 20. 11. 2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite parties to refund the whole of the deposited amount to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date final payment. In addition Rs. 500 has been awarded as cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that a residential plot bearing No. 54 measuring 220 sq. metres located in Sector-13, Urban Estate, Bhiwani was allotted to the complainant as per letter bearing No. 1593 dated 16. 6. 1990. It is the case of the complainant that he had deposited Rs. 2,919 as earnest money at the time of submitting his application and the instalments amount thereafter as per terms of the allotment letter but the opposite parties failed to carry out any development in the area and did not offer possession of allotted plot even upto the expiry of nine years. It was stated that cost of construction had escalated during this period. Consequently, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount along with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. In addition he claimed Rs. 20,000 on account of loss suffered by him because of increase in the cost of construction. He further claimed Rs. 20,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was admitted that the complainant had paid the instalments amount in terms of the allotment letter issued to him. At the same time it was stated that the development work in the area where the allotted plot was allotted could not be carried out due to the stay granted by the Hon''ble High Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Taking into consideration the respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum, found no substance in the stand of the opposite parties and while accepting the complainant issued the directions in its order dated 20. 11. 2003 noticed above. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

At the threshold of arguments learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties did not dispute that upto the date of filing of the complaint, the opposite parties had not been able to carry out the development work in the area and assailed the order of the District Forum only on the ground that while directing the refund of the deposited amount to the complainant interest @ 12% per annum ordered to be paid is excessive and this order of the District Forum needs to be modified. The submission made, as such, cannot be accepted because admittedly in this case the allotment was made to the complainant as per letter bearing Memo No. 1593 dated 16. 6. 1990. The present complaint was filed on 14. 8. 2001. Therefore, upto the date of filing of the complaint the opposite parties failed to carry out the development work in the area and during this period the cost of construction have also escalated. The District Forum had rightly accepted the complaint and awarded the interest on the deposited amount.

IT deserves noticed that the complainant has not come in appeal against the order of the District Forum and for the reason it has attained finality qua him. However, during the course of pendency of the appeal an application bearing No. 768 of 2006 was filed from the side of the respondent-complainant whereby it was prayed that the applicant-complainant be allowed to retain the plot after for going the relief of refund as prayed for and granted in the complaint filed by him. During the course of arguments learned Counsel representing the complainant has pressed the prayer made in the application. Admittedly, in this case in the complaint filed the complainant has only sought for the refund of the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund as well as other relief in respect of the escalated cost of construction. The District Forum has not allowed any escalated cost of construction and accepted the prayer to the extent that the deposited amount be refunded to him along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its refund. By now, it is well settled that the complainant cannot be allowed to put up altogether a new case after the order of the District Forum has attained finality qua him. Therefore, the submission made from the side of the complainant in this regard as such has no legal base and for that reason it cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.