Kamal Refrigeration vs Add Life Pharma Pvt Ltd

HUDA has come up in appeal against the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Ambala, whereby the complaint of Smt. Usha Sood has been allowed.

ACCORDING to the complainant, HUDA had allotted her plot No. 99, measuring 420 sq. metres in Sector 21 at Panchkula vide allotment letter dated 13.7.1987. Though originally the tentative price was fixed at Rs. 1,18,650/ - but later on it was enhanced by adding Rs. 24,515.40 and Rs. 25,796/ -. The complainant paid the same also and cleared the instalments too. Despite all this, she did not receive any offer of possession though other persons similarly situated had been offered possession of plots allotted to them. Aggrieved against that, the complainant approached the learned District Consumer Forum for the delivery of possession of the plot and also for the payment of compensation as there had been enormous escalation in the cost of construction during all this period. In their reply, the HUDA pleaded that the possession could not be delivered to the complainant because the plot allotted to her was not ready in all respects and that the needful would be done very soon. During the trial of the complaint, the complainant produced voluminous evidence documentary as well as oral to substantiate her allegations and also established on record that in fact HUDA had permitted illegal construction of huts and jhuggis by their own labourers and as HUDA did not want to remove them for the reasons best known to them, the delay had been caused in the delivery of possession. Expert evidence was also produced to further establish that there had been constant escalation in the cost of construction, as the cost of material and labour charges had gone very high during the last one decade. The learned District Consumer Forum placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in Rajnish Chander Sarda v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1995 (1) CPC 564, allowed the complaint by granting the following reliefs: "(i) To deliver possession of the plot allotted to her or in the alternative another plot in the same Sector of equal size and location, i.e. one kanal corner plot or in any other Sector in Panchkula which had already been inhabited at the same price already paid by the complainant. (ii) To pay simple interest on the amount deposited by the complainant @ 18% w.e.f. 1.11.1992 till the date of delivery of possession of the plot to her. (iii) To pay Rs. 2,00,000/ - on account of escalation in cost of construction of house to the complainant. (iv) To pay Rs. 60,000/ - on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant."

In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the HUDA has vehemently contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of HUDA as the possession of an alternative plot has since been given to the complainant in February, 1996. Though this fact has been admitted by the complainant - respondent but it cannot be lost sight of that the possession has been delivered after the decision of the learned District Consumer Forum on 20.12.1995, as also after the filing of the instant appeal before this Commission, Therefore, in these circumstances, we passed the following order on 26.8.1996: "It is stated by Mr. Narottam Kaushal, learned Counsel for the appellant -HUDA that an alternative plot has since been allotted to Smt. Usha Sood, complainant - respondent. It is also stated that possession of the alternative plot has also since been delivered to the complainant. This fact has not been denied by the husband of the complainant or her learned Counsel, who are present in the Court today. Now the only controversy remains to be settled is with regard to exact amount of compensation, which has to be awarded to the complainant - Smt. Usha Sood for the monetary loss, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by her due to non -delivery of possession of the original plot. For that, to come up for arguments on 28th of October, 1996."

SO far as the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum to the complainant is concerned, the learned Counsel for HUDA has pleaded that it is excessive and deserves to be reduced, if not totally declined. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the complainant -respondent has vigorously pressed for the rejection of the appeal and upholding the relief granted by the learned District Forum as it is almost after a decade that possession of the plot has been delivered to the complainant and that too during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Counsel has further argued that as the cost of consruction has gone very high, the complainant shall have to incur an extra expenditure of atleast rupees five lacs for completing the construction of the house.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the matter in detail, we find that the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Forum, Ambala, are in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission in Rajnish Chander Sharda''s case 1995 (1) CPC 564, and. no interference is called for. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.