PUSHPA DEVI vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE Haryana Urban Development Authority had advertised for allotment of residential plots in Sector 23 & 23-A in Phase II at Gurgaon on the basis of a draw of lots. THE relevant brochure with regard thereto was published and in response thereto Pushpa Devi complainant put in an application dated 20th of June, 1986 alongwith deposit of Rs. 2876/- for the allotment of a six marlas plot at the rate of Rs. 213.06 paise per square meter. Apparently under some misapprehension it was averred that the said application was not registered by the Haryana Urban Development Authority and no registration number therefor was recorded and consequently the same was not included in the draw of lots. This was held later on the 7th of August, 1986. On that premise it had been averred that if the application of the complainant had been included in the draw of lots, there was every possibility of her getting a valuable plot allotted and therefore she was gravely prejudiced. It is then her case that she represented to the opposite parties vide an application dated 14th of January, 1987 (Annexure III) which was duly forwarded to the authority vide (Annexure IV) but no step for redressal of her grievance was taken and she was not informed as to why her application was not registered and not included in the draw of lots. Reliance is sought to be placed on (Annexure V) a copy of the order of the State Commission in an altogether different case where relief was granted to a party whose application had not been registered and not put in the draw. THE repeated assertions in the complaint are that the opposite parties are remiss in not registering her application nor including the same in the draw of lots subsequently. THE allegation is that consequently she has suffered a loss of more than Rs. 1,70,000/- due to the escalated price of the plots of this category. 2.It is then the case that the complainant had preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 7407 of 1990 before the High Court for seeking relief which was later withdrawn by her on November 11,1992 for seeking redress before this Commission. THE claim now is that a residential plot measuring six marlas in Sector 23, 23-A for the original price of Rs. 28760/- be directed to be allotted to the complainant with costs or in the alternative to pass such order or direction as may be deemed fit with costs of these proceedings. 3.In the reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties by the Estate Officer, HUDA at Gurgaon the factum of the complaint having put in her application alongwith earnest money is admitted. However the firm stand is that the said application was duly registered and No. 42630 was allotted to the complainant. Equally the said application with the registration number was included in the draw of lots conducted on the 7th of August, 1986 but the complainant was unsuccessful therein. 4.THE repeated stand is that the complainant''s application was both registered and included in the draw and apart from that all persons present were asked to ensure whether their names are included in the draw of lots or not and not the least objection on the complainant''s part was raised. It is then averred that the claim of the complainant at this stage is belated and stale whilst the factum of filing of the writ petition is admitted. Lastly the plea is that the complainant having been unsuccessful in the draw of lots, can withdraw her earnest money on any working day or the same can be sent to her by post, if so desired. 5.In support of her case the complainant has put in her affidavit to corroborate the allegations in the complaint and was cross-examined on behalf of the opposite parties. THErein she conceded that she had never given any application for the refund of the money deposited and stated that she did not attend the draw personally. Reliance was placed on documents the authenticity of which was not challenged on behalf of the opposite parties. 6.In rebuttal the detailed affidavit of Mr. Ashok Sangwan, Estate Officer, HUDA Gurgaon was placed n the record and he was cross-examined at great length on behalf of the complainant. However, nothing worthwhile in favour of the complainant could be listed there from. THE documents relied upon by the opposite parties were also not assailed on behalf of the complainant. 7.Mr. Gobind Goel the learned Counsel for the complainant despite being on a weak wicket had persistently argued that the opposite party. HUDA was bound to individually reply to the communication Annexure R-3 and in any case & expressly inform the complainant and every unsuccessful applicant in the draw of lots with regard to the same. It was submitted that for this lapse only the complainant would be entitled to the allotment of an alternative plot of the same size and price. 8. We are afraid that there is no merit in the aforesaid submission. Despite being pin-pointed the learned Counsel for the complainant could draw our attention to nothing whatsoever which mandated the opposite party-HUDA to serve a notice in writing to the complainant or every unsuccessful applicant with regard to the result of the draw. That being so we cannot find the least deficiency in service in this context which alone can be made a basis of relief to the complainant. It now stands established that the complainant''s application was duly registered and the number allotted to her was 42630 and the same was duly put in the draw of lots but without success. It is then common ground that this draw of lots was done in a public manner and it was open to the applicants to attend the same and verify the result. Nor is it in dispute that the names of the successful applicants in the draw were prominently put on the notice board for the information of the public. Inevitably it followed that barring the successful ones the others had inevitably failed in the chance they took with open eyes. On behalf of the respondent it was forcefully pointed out that it was neither the duty nor practicable to serve a written notice on each unsuccessful applicant in this context. Specifically herein with regard to the particular category of six marlas only there were as many as 6,000/- applications. One can imagine the numbers for all the categories which were advertised. In this situation one cannot possibly lay down the onerous burden of serving each of the unsuccessful applicant with regard to their fate in the draw. THE procedure adopted by the respondent in this context cannot, therefore, be faulted. 9. THE complainant''s claim in this context, therefore, must necessarily fail. 10. However as regards the refund of the deposited amount the complainant is on impeccable ground. It is the common case that the said draw was held on the 7th of August, 1986 and the result published forthwith. THEreafter it was the bounden duty of the respondent - HUDA to refund the amount with reasonable expedition within the time frame therefor, now spelt out by this Commission in a number of its decisions. THE argument that each unsuccessful complainant must apply afresh for the refund and to go with a begging bowl to the door of the respondent for his deposited money has to be only noticed and rejected. We may reiterate in this fact situation that the respondent - HUDA having invited the applications and accepted the deposits on the basis of draw of lots is equally obliged to refund the amount to the unsuccessful complainant with reasonable solicitude to the consumer. Herein the complainant was not extended the mere courtesy of even refunding the amount for well nigh seven years after the receipt of the same. THE deficiency in service in this context is writ large on the record. It is however, not necessary to elaborate the matter because it is now covered by the precedent in 1992 (2) C.P.C. 427, Estate Officer HUDA v. Parmeshwari Devi. THErein it was concluded in the following terms:- "To finally conclude the answer to the question posed at the outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that the HUDA is not entitled to withhold the deposits received without payment of any interest for an indefinite period of time."

On the aforesaid ratio the award of interest to the consumer was upheld and in accord with settled precedent in the context the rate of 18% is currently the rule. THE complainant is thus entitled to relief accordingly. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion this complaint is partly allowed and it is directed that the respondent shall refund the deposited amount of Rs. 2,876/- with interest at the rate of 18% with effect from the 7th of October, 1986 till the date of realisation. THE computed amount shall be tendered within one month from today, failing which compliance will have to be enforced under Section 27 of the Act. Complaint allowed.