JAI KUMAR MEERANI vs HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

COMPLAINANT-Jai Kumar Meerani applied on 30th November, 1989 to Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, Chandigarh for the allotment of industrial plot in Phase-V, Industrial Estate, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The application was for 4000 square metres plot, the price whereof @ Rs. 595/- per square metre came to be Rs. 23,80,000/- and 10% of the same being Rs. 2,38,000/- was sent by a demand draft No. 97644 dated 30th November, 1989 payable at Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, along with Application No. 17698 specifying therein that the application was for the allotment of industrial plot in Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. Thereafter the complainant met the authorities of the opposite party number of times for satisfying their allotment committee for the genuineness of his need for the bigger plot, but on 11th March, 1991 the Corporation informed the complainant that a plot of only 500 square metres, as against 4000 square metres applied for, had been allotted to him for his project and his application for allotment had been accepted only for that much area. By this letter the complainant was also asked to pay 15% of the cost of the plot. Since the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,38,000/-, there was no further demand for the additional cost of 15%. Therefore, the complainant accepted the allotment and asked the Corporation to deduct 25% of the price of the plot measuring 500 square metres and refund the balance amount lying with the Corporation, out of the total sum of Rs. 2,38,000/- paid by him on 30th November, 1989 through Bank draft. However, this was not done despite repeated reminders sent by the complainant though by letter dated 16th September, 1991 while admitting the receipt of Rs. 2,38,000/- and adjustment of a sum of Rs. 74,375 /- towards 25% of the cost price of the plot allotted, the Corporation intimated the complainant that only a sum of Rs. 1,40,500/- was lying in excess, which could be refunded. But even this amount was not refunded to the complainant. It has further been alleged by the complainant that though for raising construction on the plot the complainant had earlier decided to raise loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation on the plot measuring 4000 square metres, but as subsequently the Corporation allotted a smaller plot i.e. less than 500 square metres as mentioned in the order of allotment, he dropped the idea of raising loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation and to go ahead with construction from his own resources. The complainant intimated the Corporation accordingly by his letters dated 27th April, 1992 and 13th June, 1992 and also sent another Bank draft amounting to Rs. 25,350/- on 11th August, 1992 as the Corporation was insisting for the additional payment. However, according to the complainant, the Corporation on 8th September, 1992 returned the aforesaid Bank draft of Rs. 25,350/- intimating the complainant that the aforesaid allotment had been cancelled. The complainant again approached the authorities and sent a fresh draft of the same amount, which was encashed by the Corporation, though the withdrawal of the cancellation of allotment was not intimated to him.

THE complainant thereupon approached the Industrial Grievance Cell and the Director of Industries, Haryana and it was with their good offices that the Corporation intimated the complainant on 13th January, 1993, that they had accepted the proof of completion of formalities stipulated in the letter of allotment under the Self Finance Scheme, but added for the first time that the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the complainant only on payment of the full price of the plot allotted. In reply thereto, the complainant wrote back to the Corporation on 23rd January, 1993, 10th February, 1993, 15th February, 1993 and 26th February, 1993 that as a sum of more than Rs. one lac was already lying with the Corporation being the 10% price of 4000 square metres plot, the same could be adjusted against the price of smaller plot of 450 square metres allotted to him. Despite all this, the possession of the plot allotted was not delivered to the complainant though according to the complainant every time he was being asked to pay the additional amount. However, on 22nd September, 1993 the Corporation wrote a letter to the complainant enclosing therewith a cheque dated 8th September, 1993 in the sum of Rs. 1,22,850/-, towards the refund of the application money in respect of plot No. 566, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, followed by another letter dated 30th September, 1993 stating that the Corporation had withdrawn the allotment in respect of the said plot. THE complainant returned the cheque of Rs. 1,22,850/- and wrote back to the Corporation on 8th October, 1993 that though he had paid the amount of Rs. 2,38,000/- four years back, the refund of the aforesaid amount was discriminatory. He continued meeting the authorities of the Corporation for a year or so there after, but when his request was not acceded to, he filed the present complaint on 3rd August, 1994 for the delivery of possession of industrial plot No. 566, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon or in the alternative, a similar plot in the same Phase-V, along with compensation of Rs. 6,10,000/- being the excess cost of construction which he would be incurring now as against the cost of construction at the rates prevalent in 1991. In their written reply filed by the Corporation though the factual position, with regard to the submission of the application by the complainant for the allotment of plot in Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, receipt of the Bank demand draft in the sum of Rs. 2.38.000/- being 10%i of the total price of the plot measuring 4000 square metres and the subsequent allotment by the Corporation of a smaller plot measuring 500 square metres and the subsequent cancellation of the allotment and refund of the amount to the complainant as also reconsideration on his request and acceptance and subsequent amount remitted by the complainant, has been admitted, yet the complaint is sought to be contested by pleading that the allotment in question was only a tentative one and the same being not final, the Corporation could withdraw the allotment unilaterally at any time.

In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has produced number of documents which are in the nature of correspondence exchanged between the complainant and the Corporation during 1989 to 1994 i.e. Exs. C1 to C34. He has also appeared in the witness box to substantiate the same on 26th August, 1996 and in his cross-examination he has reiterated, that instead of 4000 square metres, plot allowed to him was of 500 square metres, which on the spot by measuring came to be 450 square metres i.e. 30 mts. x 15 mts. In their defence, the Corporation has filed the affidavit of their Estate Officer Mr. 0. P. Kapoor to reiterate their stand that as the complainant had failed to complete certain formalities the Corporation thought of cancelling the allotment which was only tentative and had not been made final. To substantiate the same Mr. O.P. Kapoor has also appeared in the witness box. In his cross- examination he has admitted that the complainant had applied for the allotment of 4000 square metres plot in 1989 for which he had deposited Rs. 2,38,000/- being 10% of the cost price. He has also admitted that acceptance of the complainant for the allotment of even smaller plot was received on 11th March, 1991. With regard to the delivery of possession he has stated that since the allotment was only provisional, the possession of the plot was not offered to the complainant. With regard to the cancellation of allotment, it was admitted by Mr. Kapoor that only reason for the cancellation was, that the complainant failed to complete certain formalities, which according to him were raising loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation. However, it was further admitted that the Corporation could not compel the complainant to borrow loan from Haryana Financial Corporation and the complainant could raise the funds from other financial institutions.

AFTER the conclusion of the oral as well as documentary evidence by the parties, their learned Counsel made oral as well as written- submissions in support of their respective claims. AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the pleadings as well as evidence on record, we are of the considered view that Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation has been wholly unfair to the complainant, firstly in not allottiiig the industrial plot of 4000 square metres for which 10% price amounting to Rs. 2,38,000/- was received by them as back as on 30th November, 1989. Secondly, in not delivering the possession even of the plot allotted to him measuring 500 square metres subsequently and again in not adjusting the amount already paid towards the price of smaller plot allotted to him. The entire factual position of the complaint as narrated in the affidavit of the complainant having been admitted, it is strange that out of the amount of Rs. 2,38,000/- deposited as back as in 1989, a sum of Rs. 1,22,850/- was refunded to him in September, 1993 only because the complainant did not complete "certain formalities". The only formality which had been highlighted by the Corporation was that the loan was not raised by the complainant from the Haryana Financial Corporation though it is admitted by their Estate Officer that the Corporation could not compel the complainant to raise it from the Haryana Financial Corporation. It stands to reason that the complainant had decided to borrow loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation when the plot applied for and the amount deposited by way of 10% of its price was measuring 4000 square metres, but later on when the opposite party-Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation allotted to the complainant only a plot of 500 square metres as against 4000 square metres, the complainant was well within his right not to borrow loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation, but to raise construction by arranging funds from his own resources. In these circumstances, the withdrawal of the allotment of the plot is wholly illegal and unfair and cannot be countenanced, simply because the Corporation was of the view that the allotment was only provisional and could be withdrawn unilaterally at any time. A clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation towards the complainant having been made out, they must compensate the claimant. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation: (i) To allot within a period of one month an industrial plot in Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon of 500 square metres, at the same price as was fixed for such plots by the Corporation at the time of original allotment; (ii) Adjust the amount already deposited by the complainant and lying with the Corporation, along with interest thereon at the rate of 15% from the date of deposit, towards the total price of the plot to be allotted; and (iii) To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages to compensate him for the harassment and mental agony caused to him.

Complaint allowed.