PRITI CHAWLA vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

XTHIS order shall dispose of two appeals, No. 400/ 98 filed by Smt. Priti Chawla against Haryana Urban Development Authority and Appeal No. 423 of 1998 filed by HUDA against Smt. Priti Chawla, as both the appeals arise against the same order dated 10.3.1998 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon. Complainant Smt. Priti Chawla an allottee of HUDA approached the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon with the grievance that even though plot No. 1833 in Sector 17, Urban Estate, Gurgaon was allotted as back as in 1987 and she had also made the payments of all the instalments including enhanced price of the plot, yet the possession of the plot had not been delivered to her, despite repeated requests made to HUDA from time-to-time. Regarding non-delivery of possession, HUDA pleaded that due to pendency of litigation with regard to the plot, the delivery of its possession could not be made within 2 years; hence they were willing to make alternate plot in lieu of the original allotment. Consequently, the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, allowed the complaint directing HUDA to make the alternative allotment on the original price as prevailing at the time of floating of the sector in which the alternate allotment was to be made. Aggrieved against the same, complainant Smt. Priti Chawla has filed Appeal No. 400/98 pleading therein that the allotment of the alternative plot should be at the rates which were originally prevailing at the time plot was originally allotted to the complainant, interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 18% till the date of offer of possession of alternative plot was allotted and also for escalation in the cost of construction amounting to Rs. 3,19,500/-, besides the compensation for monetary loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

ON the other hand, HUDA, in their Appeal No. 423 of 1998 has pleaded, that there being no deficiency in service on part of HUDA, the complaint should be dismissed. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the complainant has successfully established the deficiency in service on the part of HUDA because even though the plot was originally allotted to her as back as in 1987, the possession of this plot even of the alternative plot has not been handed over to her till today. Consequently, we allow the Appeal No. 400/98 filed by the complainant- Smt. Priti Chawla and direct HUDA- (i) to allot alternative plot to the complainant in the same or adjoining sector at the rate which were prevailing at the time of original allotment of the Plot No. 1833, Sector 17, Gurgaon; (ii) to pay to the complainant interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the entire deposite made by her against the original plot w.e.f. the date of deposite till the date of offer of alternative plot; (iii) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction; and (iv) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for monetary loss and mental agony suffered by him. The complainant shall also be entitled to the cost of litigation, which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. The aforesaid payments shall be made by HUDA, within the period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. So far as Cross-appeal No. 423 of 1998 filed by HUDA is concerned, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal No. 400/98 allowed with costs. Appeal No. 423/98 dismissed.