SARASWATI KUNJ co-operative HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. vs PRITAM KUMAR GUPTA

CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 25.8.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant without any further demand.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had become a member of the opposite party-Society and had deposited Rs. 1,93,750 vide receipt No. 20 dated 23.10.1995 on the basis of the demand letter dated 18.3.1995 served upon the complainant for the allotment of plot measuring 250 sq. yards located in Phase-I, so formulated by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had allotted plot No. 707 to the complainant as per letter dated 31.3.1995. The opposite parties had also issued certificate in favour of the complainant on 31.8.1995. The plots were allotted to the members of the society on the basis of first come first serve basis. The opposite parties did not follow the above stated principle while making the allotment of the plots to members, and rather allotted the plots to the persons who had become members subsequent to the complainant. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint alleging that the opposite parties had failed to deliver the possession of the plot to him due to which he could not raise construction of his house and because of the delay on the part of the opposite party led to the escalation of the cost of construction and on that account he had to incur the expenses of Rs. 50,000 on building material and cost of labour. Accordingly, it was prayed that the directions be given to the opposite party to deliver the possession of the plot to him and also to pay the above mentioned compensation amount to him. In pursuance of the notice served upon the opposite party, a detailed written statement was filed. The opposite party did not dispute the deposit of Rs. 1,93,750 for allotment of 250 sq. yards plot located in Phase-I of the Society. It was maintained that the physical possession of the plot had not been delivered as recently the opposite party had been granted licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, Chandigarh vide licence No. 1 of 2000 and the development work of the land was in full swing. On completion of the development work the plot would be handed over to the complainant. It is further stand of the opposite party that no other person had been handed over the possession of any plot of Part-II of Phase-I till date. It was recently the opposite party had started making the delivery of the possession of plots after completion of necessary formalities and receiving the whole price from the members. Further according to them the possession of the plot will be delivered to the complainant after he completes the necessary requirements and makes deposit of the whole price of the plot. Taking into consideration the respective stands of the parties, the District Forum as per order dated 25.8.2003 accepted the complaint and issued the directions noticed above. Dissatisfied with the said order the appellant-opposite party has come up in appeal. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

From the enumerated facts there is no factual dispute between the parties. The opposite party has admitted that the complainant is a member of the Society of the opposite party. He has also deposited Rs. 1,93,750 vide receipt No. 20 dated 23.10.1995 for the allotment of 250 sq. yards plot located in Phase-I as per scheme formulated by the opposite party. According to the version of the opposite party the said plot is located in Part-II, Phase-I of the Society. It has also been admitted that after completing the development work, the opposite party started making delivery of the allotted plots to the members. It is undisputed on record that almost more than 10 years had elapsed but the possession of the plot had not been given to the complainant. Under the circumstances of the case no fault can be found with the order of the District Forum. Similar controversy raised has been decided in First Appeal No. 409 of 2004, decided on 11.1.2007, The Saraswati Kunj Co-operative House Building Society v. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal, by this Commission.

IN fairness to the Counsel for the respondent-complainant objection was raised during the course of arguments with regard to the maintainability of the appeal because the opposite party had not authorized by resolution or otherwise to file the appeal on the basis of observations made in case, Gram Sabha Salina v. Nahar Singh & Ors., 1978 PLJ 54. While making this submission, copy of the resolution filed on record has not been taken into consideration. No doubt, it is undated but the fact remains that mention has been made with regard to the complaint filed by Ramesh Kumar Gupta before the District Forum, Gurgaon whereby Ram Gopal Sharma, President of the Society has been authorized to engage to file appeal. IN view of the above stated position, there is no force in the objections raised and the same is rejected. For the reasons recorded in the earlier part of the order, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.