KRISHAN LAL MONGA vs ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA

THIS com-plaint arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant, Shri K.L. Monga alleging deficiency in rendering services on the part of the respondent, HUDA.

BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied to the respondent for allotment of a plot in Faridabad in February, 1972. In the draw of lots in May, 1972 for allotment of plots, the complainant was not successful. Instead of returning the money, the respondent offered a plot in Sector 21-B in December, 1972. Upon its acceptance, the complainant was allotted plot No. 523 in Sector B. Faridabad in February, 1973. - full payment was also made. On account of some unauthorised structure having come up on the allotted plot, possession could not be given. The complainant kept waiting, reminding and meeting the officials for all these years. After 27 long years the complainant was offered an alternative plot in May, 1999 bearing plot No. 103 in Sector 31. Possession of this was not given. On the other hand an additional demand of Rs. 3,44,920/- was raised against the complainant. It is in these circumstances that the complaint has been filed seeking following reliefs : (a) An order/direction be passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents directing the respondents for payment of damages amounting to Rs. 13,80,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty thousand only) for the escalation in the cost of construction between 1973 and 2001.

(b) An order/direction for payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 16,20,000/- (Rupees sixteen lacs twenty thousand only) for the loss of rent for 27 years @ Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per months) be passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.

(c) An order/direction for payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 5,76,000/- (Rupees five lacs seventysix thousand only) for the loss of shelter for a period of 8 years at an average monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month be passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.

(d) An order/direction be passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as damages to the complainant for causing mental harassment, humiliation, stress, tension and irrepairable agony to the complainant.

(e) An order/direction for the payment of interest @ 18% per annum at half-yearly rests on the amounts awarded be also passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.

(f) An order/direction for the payment of cost of the proceedings amounting to Rs. 30,000/- be also passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.

(g) An order/direction for the cancellation of the arbitrary, unfair and unjust demand letter issued by the respondent No. 1 to the complainant be also passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.

(h) Any other and further directions/order under the circumstances of the case which this Hon''ble Commission may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.

On notice being issued, HUDA filed its written version on two parts. First, they raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer, there is no cause of action. On merits it is stated by them that there has been no deficiency on their part. Allotment of plot in Sector 21-B is admitted but it is stated that on account of certain pucca structure on the site possession of the given plot could not be handed over. Possession could not be given for reasons beyond their control. The complainant agreed in writing to give higher price for the plot. He cannot go back from the undertaking charging revised price from the complainant is as per HUDA policy. The complaint need to be dismissed.

It was argued by the complainant that there is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of OP-HUDA. Plot was allotted to him in 1972 - January, 1973, full payment was made. Yet on account of acts of omission on the part of HUDA the possession of plot could not be given to him and finally when they have given him an alternative plot, it has been offered to him at an escalated price. To ask the complainant to pay additional amount, while enjoying the benefits of money deposited by him for 29 years is neither lawful nor just, for which he must he compensated. Complaint be allowed with costs. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, Mr. Mudgil that they are charging price as per HUDA policy. Earlier allotted plot could not be given over to the complainant for reasons beyond their control. He is not a consumer and complaint need to be dismissed.

WE have seen the material on record and hearing the arguments. On the point raised as preliminary objections we hold that as decided in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v.M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243, the complainant is very much a ''consumer''. Basic facts are not disputed that the complainant was allotted plot No. 523 in Sector 21-B in Faridabad in February, 1973 and full payment was also made at that time. The complainant has been offered an alternative plot No. 103 in Sector 31 in May, 1999. The only point involved is, what price need to be charged while allotting an alternative plot ? It is not disputed that there has been no fault at all of the complainant in getting the possession of the plot. If the plot was not vacant, why was it allotted. Getting it vacated and handing over the possession is the responsibility of the statutory Authority i.e. HUDA which has the backing of the authority of the State. Not to hand over the possession after receiving full money is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they cannot escape from it. Whatever be the facts/reality on the ground, it was for opposite party to give the possession or offer alternative site or return of money with interest. None of these was done.

THIS commission has decided cases of similar nature in HUDA & Ors. v. R.P. Chawla, R.P. Nos. 547 and 548/97, in which we have held this to be a case of deficiency, original price only is chargeable for the alternative plot in the same or other sector, as well as payment of interest @ 18% on the deposited amount. Following our orders referred to above, we direct opposite party HUDA to charge the same price for the alternative plot as was charged for plot No. 523 in Sector 21-B, Faridabad, as also to pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amount from two years after the date of respective deposit(s). With these directions, the complaint is allowed. Cost fixed at Rs. 2,000/- to be payable by the opposite party to the complainant. Complaint allowed.