Prem Chand Dhiman & Anr. vs Haryana Urban Development Authority

This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainants, who happen to be the husband and wife, is directed against the order, dated 13.2.2008, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 47 of 2002. By the impugned order, while partly accepting the Complaint, the State Commission has directed Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA") to: pay to the Complainants interest @ 12% p.a. on respective deposits, made by them towards the cost of plot of land, after two years from the date of allotment to them till 15th December, 2000, the date on which offer of possession was made; refund a sum of Rs. 7,355 paid in excess of the sale consideration; refund the compound interest charged and pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards litigation expenses. 2. Succinctly put, the material facts, necessary for the disposal of the present Appeal are: that as per allotment letter dated 18.8.1987, a residential plot, bearing No. 295 in Sector 21, Panchkula measuring 300 sq. mtrs. was allotted to the Complainants at a tentative price of Rs. 77,050. Admittedly, the entire sale consideration, including the enhanced price on account of land compensation, was deposited by the Complainants with HUDA on time. However, despite several requests in this behalf, possession of the plot was not delivered. Ultimately, vide its letter 2.3.1998, HUDA offered an alternative plot bearing No. 1831, located in the same Sector was offered to the complainants. The request of the Complainants for delivery of possession of the originally allotted plot was not acceded to instead the possession of the said alternative plot was again offered to the Complainants vide letter, dated 15th December, 2000. Left with no alternative, the Complainants took possession of the said plot on 9.1.2001. 3. Alleging deficiency on the part of the HUDA, in delaying delivery of possession of the plot by almost thirteen years, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the State Commission praying for the following reliefs: (i) Rs. 10,00,000 as escalation in the cost of construction on account of delay of nine years in offering possession of the allotted plot; (ii) Rs. 2,25,000 towards disadvantage by way of allotment of substandard alternative plot; (iii) Rs. 3,50,000 (Rs. 1,75,000 to each of the complainants) for causing mental pain during the period of nine years; (iv) Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation for levelling the alternative plot; and, (v) Award of interest and costs. 4. Despite service of notice in the Complaint, for the reasons best known to HUDA, no Written Version was filed on its behalf. 5. Accordingly, taking into consideration the material placed on record by the Complainants, the State Commission accepted the Complaint and granted the afore noted reliefs. 6. Being dissatisfied with the reliefs granted, the Complainants have preferred the present Appeal. 7. We have heard Complainant No. 1, who has presented his case in person and learned Counsel for HUDA. 8. The only grievance of the Complainants is that the State Commission has erred in not awarding compensation for escalation in cost of construction of the house on the plot between the years 1992 and 2001, when the possession of the plot was actually delivered. To buttress his stand that there was escalation in the cost of construction during this period, the Complainants have placed on record two rough cost estimates, prepared by one Parry & Associates, Architects. In the said estimate, the difference in the cost of construction between the year 1987 to 2001 and year 1992-2001 has been worked out at Rs. 17,09,028, Rs. 13,09,600, respectively. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for HUDA, while supporting the impugned order, has vehemently opposed award of any additional compensation on the plea that while awarding interest @ 12% p.a. on the amounts deposited by the Complainants, the State Commission has taken into consideration the element of escalation in the cost of construction. 10. At the outset, we may note that the finding of deficiency in rendering service to the Complainants on account of inordinate delay in delivery of possession of the allotted plot has attained finality, inasmuch as HUDA has accepted the impugned order. Even otherwise, we feel that even if there was some difficulty in delivery of possession of the originally allotted plot on account of its being encroached upon by the Jhuggi dwellers, or stay order by the Courts, as pleaded by HUDA, the fact remains that HUDA took almost nine years in delivery of possession of the alternate plot, with the result that the Complainants were unable to construct their house all the while. 11. Having perused the material on record, including the afore stated estimates placed on record by the Complainants and the assessment of cost of construction, showing variation in cost for the year 1992 and the year 2001, prepared by the officials of HUDA themselves, wherein the net variation has been arrived at Rs. 3,82,807, we are of the view that substantial escalation in cost of construction during the relevant period stands established and therefore, the Complainants are entitled to a reasonable compensation on that account. 12. The only ground on which the State Commission has rejected the prayer of the Complainants for award of compensation on this account, is that the Complainants have neither filed the affidavit of the architect nor h as he been produced in evidence. At the cost of repetion, we may note that even according to the estimate prepared by HUDA, there was escalation in the cost of construction and therefore, we are unable to agree with the State Commission that the factum of escalation in cost of construction remained unestablished. 13. Regard being had to the afore stated factual scenario and bearing in mind the fact that the Complainants had themselves restricted their claim on this account to Rs. 10,00,000, in our opinion, award of a lump sum amount of Rs. 6,00,000 as compensation to the Complainants on account of escalation in the cost of construction during the afore noted period would be just and reasonable. We order accordingly. 14. The said amount shall be paid by HUDA within six weeks from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.