VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA vs CHAIRMAN, LDA

THIS appeal arises out of the order of the State Commission allowing the complaint.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant, after completing the formalities was allotted A-Type plot under Gomti Nagar Housing Scheme on 4.6.1983 for which the complainant made full payment of Rs. 80,826/-on 4.6.1983. The possession of this plot was not given to the complainant in spite of repeatedly approaching the respondent. In these circumstances, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission praying for reliefs totalling Rs. 18.90 lakh comprising Rs. 11.20 lakh on the difference on cost of the plot, 25,000/- as expenses, Rs. 6.2S lakhs as cost escalation in construction of house, Rs. 20,000/- as cost and Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony. The State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to all of an ''A'' Type plot of the same size, pay compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakh, Rs. 25,000/- for physical and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as costs and in case, it is not possible to allot the plot, then to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. in addition to the reliefs granted above. It is for the enhancement of the reliefs to the level, acclaimed in the complaint, that this appeal has been filed by the complainant.

THE respondent, Lucknow Development Authority was given an opportunity to locate an alternative plot which they did. They have indicated availability of plot Nos. 3/117, 3/118 and 3/119 measuring in all 600 sq. mtrs. in Gomti Nagar Scheme of Lucknow. This is acceptable to the complainant. The only question now remained, related to the compensation to be awarded for delayed delivery of the plot. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that all other reliefs granted by the State Commission be granted to them, compensating for cost-escalation, mental agony, expenses and costs. There is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the respondent. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Anuvrat that they have offered plot of the same size as was originally allotted� hence no other relief may be granted.

WE have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts are that the complainant was allotted a plot for which he had deposited full amount in 1983 but-was not given possession till date. At the appellate stage, at the initiative of the Commission, the respondent has offered a plot of the same size corner plot which is acceptable to the complainant. We have dealt with all the claims. In similarly placed situation in HUDA and Ors. v. R.P. Chawla and Ors., 2001 CCC 538(NS), (Revision Petition Nos. 547 and 548/1997) we have held that while allotting an alternative plot, the price to be charged should be the original price and pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amount. In view of above, the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent enumerated below. Following our own order in the case cited above, we direct the respondent, LDA to allot plot Nos. 3/117, 3/118 and 3/199 in Gomti Nagar Scheme measuring 600 sq. mtrs. at the original price i.e. Rs. 80,820/- and pay interest @ 18% on this amount from 1.7.1983 till the date of giving possession plus cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant.