Mahesh Kumar vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

FIRST Appeal Nos. 245, 246 and 247 of 2007 are similar and all the three appeals are against the order dated 13th March, 2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Panchkula. Hence, these three appeals are clubbed together and decided together.

BRIEFLY stated, case of the complainant, in Complaint No. 18 of 1999 is that the complainant S/Shri Mahesh Kumar, Satish Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Sanjay Kumar had purchased SCO No. 2 located in Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, in an open auction on 15th March, 1993 for Rs. 13,80,000. They had deposited 10% of the price on the date of auction i.e., 15th March, 1993 and the remaining 15% within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter. As Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula (HUDA) failed to carry out the development works in the area and to hand over the possession of the site to them, they filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 73 of 1994 in Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh with a prayer that writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the site immediately after making development in the area and HUDA be restrained from seeking the remaining instalments of the site till the possession was delivered and the complainants be allowed to deposit the remaining instalments after possession was delivered to them. During the pendency of this writ petition, the complainants also filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1109 of 1995 seeking stay of the payment of instalments. As per the order dated 30th March, 1995, the High Court directed the opposite parties not to recover the instalments from the complainants till the possession of the site was offered. Thereafter, HUDA offered possession of the site to the complainants on 9th January, 1996 which according to the complainants were without amenities, which were brought to the notice of the High Court. The High Court passed a common order on 27th February, 1998, whereby the complainants were asked to deposit the amount within fifteen days from 27th Feburary, 1998 and the remaining instalments was to be paid within one month, thereafter, which was accordingly deposited by them. Complainants further alleged that the possession of the plot was not delivered to them, which according to them, deemed to have been delivered only on 28th January, 1998 when the development work was completed. As they had deposited the amount prior to this date they suffered loss because of non-use of the plot and they are entitled to interest @ 18% per annum for the above said period upto 28th January, 1998. Complainants also claimed that they are entitled to recover Rs. 9,86,392 on account of total loss suffered by them due to deficiency in service provided by the HUDA.

Huda contested this claim before the State Commission stating that as per the directions of the High Court offer of possession was made on 9th January, 1996 after completing the basic development work and, thereafter, the complainants obtained possession of the site and started making construction on it. Huda further stated that the interest of 18% per annum claimed by the complainant was not granted by the High Court.

IN Complaint No. 19 of 1999 the above complainants had purchased SCO No. 3 located in Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. IN this case also on the basis of similar averments, they have stated they had suffered loss of Rs. 9,21,392 on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and to pay the complainant the said amount along with interest @ 18% per annum after 28th January, 1998 till its realisation. In Complaint No. 20 of 1999 the above named complainants stated that they had purchased SCO No. 4 located in the same sector. In this case also, similar allegations have been made and similar relief have been claimed.

THE State Commission after hearing the learned Counsel representing the parties at length and after going through the records of the case and several orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and also referring to several citations, dismissed all the three complaints. In this case, the High Court had appointed a Local Commissioner whose report was considered by the High Court and it gave certain directions to HUDA. It is useful to quote the operative part of the order dated 27th Feburary, 1998 of the High Court which reads as follows: "In view of the fact that the necessary development has been carried out and amenities have been provided, the writ petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous. However, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioners to deposit the amount due in two equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by the petitioners within fifteen days from today and the remaining instalments shall be paid by them within one month thereafter. In case petitioners fail to make payment of the instalments due to the respondents, the latter shall be free to resume the sites in question."

We have also perused the prayer portion of the writ petition filed by the complainant before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh which reads as follows: "The respondents may be directed to pay the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment by the petitioner to the date of delivery of possession by the respondents." This is not disputed. On 9th July, 2007 we had passed the following order which is as under- ''Order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 73 of 1994 filed under Articles 226 and 227 at Pages 3 to 5 would show that an application under Section 151, CPC read with Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction Rule praying for award of interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit @ 18% per annum was also filed by the writ petitioners. In terms of the order dated 11th July, 1996 taking note of the statment made by the Counsel of HUDA, that possession of the plots have been offered to all the writ petitioners on 9th January, 1997, the write petition was dismissed as infructuous, meaning thereby that prayer for interest was declined by the High Court. On inquiry, Mrs. Yadav states that no LPA was filed against the order dated 11th July, 1996. Prima facie, in view of this High Court''s order the petitioners cannot claim interest on the deposited amount for the period involved in the said writ petition by filing complaints before the Consumer Fora."

WE have gone through the various orders of the High Court and heard the revision petitioner at some length. The relief claimed by the petitioner was identical to the relief claimed by the complainant before the High Court. The High Court has passed orders from time-to-time wherein certain relief has been granted to the complainants but the High Court has not granted any interest on the deposited amount to the appellants. Accordingly, we do not see any justification in the claim of the complainants and, therefore, the appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.