Malkit Singh vs ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA, ETC.

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, which in turn upheld the order passed by the learned President of the District Forum and disapproving the order of the companion Members of the District Forum. The facts in nutshell which lead to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had been allotted a residential plot No. 851 measuring 210 sq. metres in Faridabad but the possession thereof was not delivered as the land out of which the plot was carved out, was under litigation. THIS had led the complainant to knock the doors of the District Forum. The District Forum by two separate orders, one by the learned President and the other by the learned Members of the District Forum, directed the Haryana Urban Development Authority to deliver the alternative plot to the complainant. To this extent, both the President and the Members were in consensus. The Members while agreeing with the learned President of the District Forum in allotting alternative plot to the complainant, went further and directed the HUDA to pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a. (compound) on the amount deposited by him from the date of deposit till the date on which physical possession of the alternative plot is given, which would partially compensate the escalation in the cost of construction during the period of delay in handing over the possession of the plot, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

THE HUDA went in appeal where the State Commission has upheld the order of the President of the District Forum and set aside the order passed by the learned Members of the District Forum. Now, it is the complainant who has come in revision before us with the prayer that he may be allotted an alternative plot, Rs. 50,000/- for escalation of price, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, interest at the rate of 24% (compound) on the amount deposited by him with the HUDA till the date of delivery of the alternative plot, and costs of litigation.

Heard the petitioner in person. We have already dealt with the point involved in this case, in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. R.P. Chawla, Revision Petition Nos. 547 and 548 of 1997 wherein we have taken a decision and directed the HUDA to give the alternative plot to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% which shall be payable from the date of respective deposits of the amounts. The interest would cover the costs of escalation in prices and the cost of construction. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the State Commission is modified to the extent of payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the amounts of respective deposits in terms of the order of this Commission in Chawla''s case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.