RADHA KRISHAN CHOUDHARY vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS order shall dispose of above mentioned two appeals bearing No. 772 of 2002 and 840 of 2002 as they have arisen out of the common order dated 20. 2. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal.

PUT shortly, the facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that the complainant Radha Krishan Choudhary had applied for 10 Marlas plot in Section-8, Urban Estate, Ambala and had deposited Rs. 33,943 as earnest money along with Application No. 37821 dated 15. 1. 2000 bearing registration No. BKNL-00544. But the said application was registered by the opposite parties for allotment of plots in Sectors 4 and 5 located at Karnal and his name was included in the draw of lots held at Karnal and not at Ambala. The complainant was successful in getting the allotment of plot of 10 Marlas bearing No. 448 located in Sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal for which he received written communication. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant seeking proof having applied for the allotment of the plot at Karnal despite the fact that the original application was with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties returned the earnest money to the complainant without interest and cancelled the allotment of the plot made in his name at Karnal. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum terming the cancellation of the plot at Karnal as unjustified being an unfair trade practice because he had been denied allotment of plot in the Urban Estate of Ambala on account of non-inclusion of his name in draw of lots held for the plots at Ambala. Accordingly, he sought directions against the opposite parties to restore the allotment of the plot of 10 Marlas to him located in Sectors 4 and 5 Karnal or to allot an alternative plot in Sector-8, Urban Estate, Ambala; to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for the mistake committed by the opposite parties by putting his name in draw of lots at Karnal which resulted in cancellation of the same; to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of compensation and also on the amount of earnest money deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties and further to pay Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was not disputed that the complainant had applied for residential plot of 10 Marlas located in Sector-8, Ambala for which application was received by them. It was further stated that inadvertently due to computer mistake the name of the complainant was not put in draw of lots at Karnal and for that reason he was asked to produce the original record for the allotment of plot in Urban Estate, Karnal but he only could produce the bank receipt for allotment of the plot at Ambala. Under the circumstances of the case they justified the cancellation of the allotment of the plot made to him at Karnal. After the Estate Officer, HUDA had submitted the copy of the application duly signed by the complainant for allotment of 10 Marlas plot in Sector-8, Ambala, his name was also entered in the computer list for the allotment of plot and his name was included in the draw of lots for Ambala. It was further stated that a sum of Rs. 33,943 had been refunded to him by the Estate Officer, Ambala vide cheque No. 598738 dated 25. 9. 2000 though the said cheque was not accepted by the complainant. Accordingly it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Taking into account the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 33,943 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit being 15. 1. 2000 till the date of payment. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum as per order dated 20. 2. 2002 the appellant-complainant has filed First Appeal No. 772 of 2002 while the appellants-opposite parties have challenged the impugned order in First Appeal No. 840 of 2002. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-complainant has been heard at length. None has chosen to appear on behalf of the HUDA-opposite parties at the time of arguments.

During the course of arguments it has been pointedly urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant had been denied the allotment of the plot in the Urban Estate, Ambala for which he had submitted an application bearing registration No. BKNL-00544 along with deposit of Rs. 33,943 as earnest money for no fault of the complainant. In fact the complainant had been put to an huge monetary loss because after the complainant was successful in getting the allotment of 10 Marlas plot in the Urban Estate, Karnal in draw of lots, it was illegally cancelled by the Estate Officer of the opposite parties instead of providing the alternative plot to the complainant in the urban estate of Karnal. Accordingly, it was submitted by him that the opposite parties should be directed to allot an alternative plot to the complainant in the Urban Estate of Ambala or he should be compensated adequately for the wrongs committed by the opposite parties. In support of the stand taken learned Counsel for the complainant placed reliance on the case, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Another v. A. V. Ramakrishnan, 1994 (3) Consumer Protection Reporter 108, wherein the facts of the case were that the complainant had applied for the allotment of the plot and had deposited the registration fee but his name was not included in the list prepared for the draw. Under these circumstances the State Commission directed the Board being the opposite parties to allot a plot to remove the deficiency in service instead of awarding compensation because the complainant was not asking the plot free of cost and will have to pay for it like any other allottee. Learned Counsel for the complainant further placed reliance on case Satya Pal Mahendiratta v. H. U. D. A. , IV (2005) CPJ 129 (NC)=2006 (1) CPC 11, wherein according to the version of the complainant he had submitted an application form along with earnest money but his application was misplaced in the office of HUDA and for that reason plot was not allotted to him. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties they were directed to pay the earnest money along with interest @ 10% per annum along with compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000. From the above stated factual position coupled with the position of law explained in the above mentioned cases there is hardly any dispute that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties under the circumstances of the case.

THE primary question which requires to be decided is whether at this stage directions be issued to allot an alternative plot to the complainant in the urban estate of Karnal or the opposite parties be directed to pay the adequate compensation to the complainant for the mistake committed by them, which led to the denial of the plot to the complainant in the urban estate of Ambala and cancellation of the plot already allotted to him at Karnal. However, during the course of arguments nothing could be brought on record to our notice from the side of the complainant that any vacant plot was available in Sector-8, Karnal on 15. 1. 2000. A period of more than six years had lapsed in between. During this period cost of the plot as well as the construction have escalated many folds. The District Forum was bound to have taken into consideration that allotment of the plot bearing No. 448 located in Sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal had been made due to the mistake committed by the opposite parties by putting his name in draw of lots at Karnal than at Ambala which led to the cancellation of the same. The compensation awarded is too meagre. Under the circumstances of the case the appeal filed by the complainant is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that instead of compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant, the opposite parties shall pay Rs. 70,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. The opposite parties shall also refund the amount of Rs. 33,943 to the complainant which was deposited by him as earnest money. As the compensation has been awarded to the complainant no interest on the amount for the period which remained with the opposite parties can be awarded. The order of the District Forum is modified accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons, the First Appeal No. 772 of 2002 filed by the complainant is accepted and the order of the District Forum dated 20. 2. 2002 is modified to the extent noticed above and the First Appeal No. 840 of 2002 filed by the opposite parties is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.