Sonia Aggarwal vs HUDA

THIS order shall dispose of both the above mentioned appeals as they are corss -appeals arising out of the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula. The complainant was allotted a residential plot No. 1461/3 measuring 144 Sq. Mtrs. located at Kurukshetra on a tentative price of Rs. 59,670.75. The complainant had initially deposited Rs. 14,917.70 being 25% of the price of the plot. In terms of the allotment letter bearing memo No. 11204 dated 4.12.1989 the possession of the plot was to be offered to the complainant on completion of the development work in the area but the possession of the plot was not offered to the complainant and instead a notice dated 23.1.2001 raising a demand of Rs. 1,72,264 and penalty amount of Rs. 17,264 vide notice dated 23.1.2001 was served upon the complainant on the allegations that the appellant -complainant had failed to pay the remaining amount of instalments upto the year 2001. According to the stand of the complainant the demand made was totally illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for and against the terms of allotment letter. The complainant wrote a letter dated 21.2.2001 submitting reply to the show cause notice dated 23.1.2001. At the same time she offered to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 44,753.05. Finding no response from the opposite parties regarding offer of possession of the allotted plot, she made a request for the refund of the amount deposited but no action was taken. Thereafter, another letter dated 23.9.2003 was addressed to the opposite parties for delivery of possession and for issuance of possession certificate without any delay. A legal notice dated 27.12.2004 was also sent to the opposite parties in this regard but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Forced by these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed whereby direction has been sought against the opposite parties to offer the possession of the vacant plot to the complainant and to pay interest @ 18% on the amount deposited from the date of its deposit till the offer of actual possession of the plot, to accept the balance price of the plot without any interest, penalty and surcharge, to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs on account of escalation of the cost of construction material, labour etc. and to pay Rs. 50,000 on account of mental harassment and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses. The claim was contested by the opposite parties. In the joint written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant had surrendered the plot as per letter received from her father dated 21.1.2001 which was entered in diary at No. 1521 dated 26.2.2001. Taking action on the request made, the allotment of the plot in question was cancelled and intimation bearing No. 16437 dated 6.9.2001 was sent to the complainant whereby she was informed that 25% of the amount deposited in the year 1990 had been forfeited as she had failed to pay the remaining amount of the instalments upto the year 2001. In rejoinder the complainant reiterated her pleas.

ON scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the directions seeking offer of possession against the opposite parties cannot be issued as the plot in question has been re -allotted and the request made in this regard cannot be accepted. As complainant has sought for the refund of the amount deposited after surrender of the plot allotted to her, the prayer made was accepted while rejecting the other claim with regard to the compensation for escalation cost of Rs. 4 lacs and Rs. 50,000 on account of harassment. Accordingly, directions were issued to the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 9% w.e.f. the date of deposit till realization and also to pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of proceedings. Dissatisfied with the said order, both the parties filed separate appeals. Mother of the appellant -complainant in First Appeal No. 100 of 2006 and learned Counsel representing the appellant -opposite parties in First Appeal No. 145 of 2006 have been heard at length.

DURING the course of arguments she has contended that the District Forum has committed illegality in declining the relief claimed in the complaint while the learned Counsel representing the opposite parties has urged that the District Forum has wrongly accepted the complaint altogether ignoring that as the complainant had surrendered the plot, the opposite parties were justified in ordering the forfeiture of the earnest money. It is manifest from the record that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant vide memo No. 11204 dated 4.12.1989 on a tentative price of Rs. 59,670.75. She has deposited the amount of Rs. 14,917.70 being 25% of the total tentative price. The balance price of Rs. 44,753.05 was required to be deposited within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter without interest or by way of annual instalments and the first instalment was to fall due after the expiry of one year from the date of the issue of the letter. Each instalment was recoverable together with interest @ 10% on the remaining amount. The interest liability was to accrue from the date of the offer of possession. In terms of Clause 7 of the allotment letter the possession of the site was to be offered to the complainant on completion of the development work in the area. The complainant has failed to pay the instalments amount within the above mentioned period. On 20.4.2000 father of the complainant wrote a letter to the Estate Officer HUDA, Kurukshetra wherein he had stated that he had not received any intimation regarding payment of the remaining instalments and accordingly requested to the opposite parties that the remaining instalments be got deposited from him or to refund 25% amount along with interest and also to issue the possession certificate. The opposite party had option to take action on the request of surrender of plot, still it made a demand of Rs. 1,72,264 and the penalty amount of Rs. 17,274 vide memo dated 23.1.2001 as the complainant had failed to pay the instalments amount on due dates and this amount included the interest amount on the outstanding instalments amount. They also issued a show cause notice under Sections 17(i) and 17(ii) of the HUDA Act, 1977. On 21.2.2001 the complainant had also addressed another letter to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra wherein she stated that she was not informed with regard to the payment of Rs. 1,72,640 earlier and accordingly she requested that the complainant be allowed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 44,753.05 or to allow her to surrender the plot, as requested earlier. The case of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties accepted her request of surrender and forfeited the amount of 25% deposited as earnest money as per letter bearing memo No. 16437 dated 6.9.2001.

FROM the above noticed circumstances it is clearly spelled out that after the initial payment of 25% of the earnest money, no instalment has been paid towards the price of the plot, by the complainant to the opposite parties. Therefore, in terms of the allotment letter the complainant was duty bound to deposit the instalments amount on yearly basis, but the liability to pay interest for the delayed payment would have arisen after offer of possession was made to the complainant by the opposite parties. Nothing prevented the complainant to pay the balance amount in lumpsum or by instalments in compliance of allotment letter and for the deposit of the said amount no permission of the opposite party was required. In this case it is not the case of the opposite parties that at any stage till the complaint was filed offer of possession was made to the complainant. It is only on 20.4.2000 and 21.2.2001 the father of the complainant offered to deposit the balance price of the plot in lumpsum or in the alternative requested for surrender of the plot and refund of 25% of the earnest amount paid along with interest. Now the question remains to be decided is whether in the given circumstances, the opposite parties were justified in forfeiting 25% of the earnest money after accepting the request of surrender of the plot made by the complainant. It is well settled that where there is delay on the part of the opposite parties in making an offer of possession of the allotted plot, then the complainant has a right to seek the refund of the amount deposited. Under the circumstances of the case the District Forum was fully justified ordering the refund of the amount deposited with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization besides cost of Rs. 1,000. The other relief claimed in the complaint has rightly been declined by the District Forum. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in both the appeals and the same are consequently dismissed. Appeals dismissed.