Pushpa Jain vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

-THIS revision petition under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arises on account of suo motu action taken by this Commission on a complaint received from the petitioners. Complaint was received on 3. 5. 2002. Notice was issued to the respondent-HUDA for this day. Meanwhile original records of the Haryana State Commission in Appeal No. 436/2000 were called for and have already been received.

THIS case shows gross impropriety on behalf of the HUDA in not complying with the order of the State Commission and leaving the petitioners complainants to knock at the doors of the District Forum and then the District Forum adjourning the matter on the request of HUDA without appreciation of the issue involved in the case and thus causing a great deal of harassment and mental agony to the complainants an old couple. Complainants were allotted a plot of land but possession of which by the respondent could not be delivered because the plot was involved in some litigation. On a complaint filed by the complainants, District Forum directed refund of the amount to the complainants with interest @ 15% per annum. The order of the District Forum is dated 16. 12. 2000.

Against this order HUDA went in appeal before the State Commission which upheld the same and dismissed the appeal but at the same time without recording any reason reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 12%. Even the cost of litigation which the District Forum awarded as Rs. 5,000 was reduced to Rs. 2,000. The order of the State Commission is dated 24. 11. 2000.

TILL 3. 5. 2002 when the complainant sent a complaint to the President of the National Commission the amount as ordered by the State Commission had not been paid and the complainants had been approaching the District Forum repeatedly. Respondent failed to give any reason as to why the order of State Commission had not been complied with all this period. Admitteldy, there is no stay of that order either by the National Commission or by the Supreme Court. The record of this case shows abysmal state of affairs on two counts : (i) a scant respect by HUDA of the orders of the Consumer Forum and (ii) helplessness shown by District Forum when it has all the authority to enforce the order of the Consumer Forum. We also wish to add this a State Commission should exercise strict control over the working of the District Forum under its charge. We are also not satisfied the way the State Commission reduced the award of interest and cost imposed by the District Forum. In similar matters National Commission has been awarding interest @ 18% per annum taking into account the interest paid on deposits by the Nationalised Banks and the cost of escalation. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and will restore that of the District Forum. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed with cost which we asess at Rs. 10,000. Respondent shall be entitled to recover this cost from the erring officials who were responsible in delaying the payment of the amount to the complainants.

LET this order be complied within four weeks from receipt of copy of this order by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon and compliance reported to us. We will fix this matter again for 11. 10. 2002 and in case payment is not made Estate Officer, HUDA will appear in person before this Commission on 11. 10. 2002. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Administrator, HUDA for him to make necessary inquiries and send in his report as to why refund as ordered was not made, when the order had obtained finality and why it became necessary for the complainants to go in for execution. In our view it was incumbent on the public body like HUDA, to send the cheque for the amount of refund to the complainants. We expect the Chief Administrator, HUDA to issue guidelines in such matters and to strictly enforce the same. After the report of the Chief Administrator is received matter will be listed for further proceeding. R. P. allowed.