SANDEEP SINGHAL vs HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.

THE complainant applied for allotment of an industrial shed type ''D'' 2000 sq. ft. (Plot Size 3400 sq. ft.) in the Industrial Estate. Faridabad in response to an advertisement in "THE Tribune" dated 5.9.1991. Alongwith application he also sent a bank draft of Rs. 45,000/- dated 20.9.91 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh which was 10% of the total price of the plot. Copy of the advertisement referred to above is Annexure C-l. THEreafter he also sent a project profile as desired by the respondent. THE complainant also appeared for interview on 13.1.1992 and there after industrial shed No. 39 measuring 2000 sq. ft in the Industrial Estate, Faridabad was allotted to him and its price was fixed as Rs. 4.50 lacs. THE complainant also remitted a bank draft of Rs. 67,500/- on 1.5.1992 being 15% of the price and thereafter remitted a further sum of Rs. 3,37,500/- in full and final payment vide bank draft dated 29.6.1992. On a further demand he also remitted a sum of Rs. 1371/- as interest on account of short delay in the payment. However, on 9.3.1995 the allotment has been cancelled on the plea that the complainant failed to complete the formalities as prescribed in the letter of allotment. It has been alleged that cancellation of allotment is negligence on the part of respondents and non-delivery of the possession of the shed amounts to deficiency in rendering the service to the complainant consumer. THE relief claimed is briefly described as under:- (i)To hand over physical possession of industrial shed No. 39 measuring 2000 sq. feet in the Industrial Estate, Faridabad to the complainant. (ii)Loss of interest on Rs. 4,50 lakh @ 24% p.a. from June, 1992 till date. Rs. 7,41,563.00 (iii)Compensation for mental agony and harassment and loss of business. Rs.5,00,000.00 THE respondents filed a reply wherein it has been averred that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that there was no cause of action because there was no deficiency on the part of the respondents. THE fact that originally a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was received by means of bank draft dated 20.9.1991 and thereafter a further sum of Rs. 67,500/- was received by means of bank draft dated 1.5.92 and that the remaining sum of Rs. 3,37,500/- being 75% of the cost was received on 29.6.92 has been specifically admitted. THE receipt of the sum of Rs. 1371/- dated 9.10.92 has also been admitted. THE allotment of industrial shed No. 39 in the Industrial Estate, Faridabad vide their letter dated 9.10.92 (C14) has also been specifically admitted in the written reply. THE short plea on behalf of the respondents for justifying the cancellation is that the complainant failed to implement the project as per the terms and conditions of the allotment.

A perusal of the complaint, reply briefly described above and admissions made on behalf of the respondent''s show that the complainant abided by all the directions issued by the respondents from time-to-time faithfully. It appears that at one occasion the complainant was asked to report at Chandigarh and to authenticate on some cuttings in the agreement so that action on the agreement could be taken. The complainant did report to the respondents and in reality there were no cuttings and there were a couple of blank columns, which were filled by the official of the respondents. However, even thereafter the formal letter pertaining to delivery of possession of the allotted plot was withheld. Unless the possession was delivered the complainant could not proceed with the project and it is clearly a case of utmost deficiency on the part of the respondent and not that there was any omission on the part of the complainant. It is a case where fondness for complainant suddenly vanished from the mind of functionaries of respondents knowing that huge deposit of complainant was lying with them. The learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to Manohar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, 1996 (1) CON.LT 715, where the entire price of Rs. 64,000/- was deposited by the complainant in respect of a plot at Mohali and the Punjab State Electronics Development & Production Corporation, was ordered to deliver possession of plot on the old rate. Since the respondent is maintaining its Head Office at Chandigarh and the complainant was required to appear at Chandigarh from time-to-time and various bank drafts were received at Chandigarh, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction. Since the complainant wanted to set up a project for income, he is a consumer in the circumstances of the case.

After perusal of the complaint, reply and evidence, it is ordered that the complaint succeeds. The respondents are ordered to handover possession of Industrial Shed No. 39, Type ''D'' 2000 sq. ft. in the Industrial Estate, Faridabad, within a period of two months. Besides this the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by him. This shall be payable for the period w.e.f. 7.2.1995 when the possession was not delivered despite the fulfillment of all the requirements, till implementation of this order. The respondents are also ordered to pay a sum of rupees one lac on account of mental agony and harassment of the complainant. Order announced.