Vinod Grover vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

CHALLENGE in these proceedings is to the order dated 14.1.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission) in first appeal No. 539 of 2005. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) against an order dated 8.3.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon in the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant. In the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant, the District Consumer Forum had given certain directions to HUDA not to charge any interest over the due instalment till the date of offer of possession i.e. 10.11.2000 with the stipulation that the complainant shall deposit the due instalments as per HUDA policy and the resumption order of the said kiosk site was quashed. HUDA was also directed to pay interest @ 18% over the entire amount till 10.11.2000. An appeal was filed by HUDA against the said order before the State Commission, which appeal was allowed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the complainant was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Fora in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh and Ors., II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 736=2009 (4) SCC 660. However, liberty was granted to the complainant to work out his remedy in accordance with law before a civil Court if so advised. In doing so, he may seek the advantage of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1995 (3) SCC 583. We have heard Mr. Govind Narayan Kaushik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anubha Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent and have considered their respective submissions.

THE facts leading to the filing of the complainant are in a narrow compass. The complainant had given a bid in an open auction for the allotment of a kiosk site. His bid was accepted and, accordingly, he (deposited 25% of the auction money, however, the balance instalments were not paid according to the complainant for the reason that the development was not complete and the amenities as were promised were not provided. It was only in the year 2000 that the possession of the plot was offered and on the failure of the complainant to pay the instalments, proceedings of the resumption of the site were started.

THE question which we are called upon to consider and answer in this case is as to whether the State Commission was justified in taking the view which it has taken by relegating the complainant to the remedy of the civil Court in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of U.T. Chandiqarh Administration and Anr. (supra) learner Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order of the State Commission primarily on the strength of the clauses of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 12.3.2000, in particular, Clause 6, which is as under- "The possession of the site will be offered to you on completion of the development works in the are. In the case of building or undeveloped land, the possession shall, however, be delivered within Rs. 90 days from the date of this letter."

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the development of the area was not complete and amenities were not provided and it was due to this reason the respondent-HUDA could not offer the possession of the plot until the year 2000 and, therefore, the complainant was justified in not making the payment of the instalments which fall due after the allotment. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that even in the said clause no specific assurance was given to the complainant for making any specific development or providing any specific amenities to the complainant in relation to the kiosk site and, therefore, the case is covered by the above referred decision.

HAVING considered the respective submissions and going by the stipulation contained in Clause 6 (supra) of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, we have no manner of doubt that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. (supra), does not squarely cover the facts of the present case. In that case also, the Supreme Court has taken the view that where any assurance is given by the developer/authority for carrying out certain further development and the site is auctioned on that promise then the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would attract. We find it a case of such nature, in view of the above terms, which can be said to have been held by HUDA at the time of auction of the plot. We are, therefore not adverting to the question as to whether the development was actually carried put or not and if carried, whether there was delay in carrying one in such development and whether HUDA was justified in resumption of the site due to the default of the complainant to pay the subsequent instalment. That question needs to be considered by the State Commission but certainly this Commission cannot approve the view taken by the State Commission relegating the complainant to the remedy of civil Court keeping in view of the facts of the present case.

IN the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the Board of State Commission for deciding the same on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.10.2011 for receiving further directions in the matter. Revision Petition allowed.