The Chief Administrator, Huda and Another Vs. Raj Dulari Gupta - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113956
CourtUnion Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Decided OnApr-07-1997
Case NumberAppeal Case No. 2 of 1996
JudgeJ.B. GARG, PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE MR. SADA NAND, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. P. OJHA, MEMBER
AppellantThe Chief Administrator, Huda and Another
RespondentRaj Dulari Gupta
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 15 and 14(1)(d) - cases referred: 1. 115 (1971) plr 232. (followed) [para 4] 2. ii (1995) cpj 70 (nc). (followed) [para 4] comparative citation: 1997 (2) cpj 126 j.b. garg, president: 1. on a com  plaint instituted by mrs. raj dulari gupta, the consumer disputes redressal forum, union territory, chandigarh, ordered on 9.10.95 that a 10 marla plot shall be allotted to her in sector 23, faridabad and if no plot is available in the aforesaid sector, then it was to be allotted in the adjacent area/sector. aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted. 2. briefly the facts are that in response to an advertisement mrs. raj dulari gupta deposited a sum of rs. 4,943/by means of a bank draft dated 17.10.84 as earnest money of a 10 marla plot in sector 23, faridabad, with the respondent through indian bank, sector 17, madhya marg, chandigarh, nominated as the collecting bank. the complainant wrote letters on 13.6.85 and 6.1.86 requesting the appellants to intimate what was the date for draw of lots. it was on 19.2.86 that the appellant informed that the land comprising sector 23, faridabad, was subject matter of a civil litigation and draw of lots shall be possible only after the final decision of the civil suit. it was in july, 1993 that appellants by means of a letter dated 20.7.93 remitted a cheque for rs. 4.943/dated 20.7.93 to the complainant on 30.7.93. the appellants did put in appearance in the district forum through their counsel and filed a reply as well but thereafter the appellants did not oppose the complaint and ultimately the impugned order was passed by the district forum. in other words, it was not a case that the complaint was decided without affording opportunity. 3. on behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that there was a dispute with some trespassers and it could not be possible for the appellants to allot a plot in sector 23, faridabad. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the appellant was not expected to retain the deposit made by the respondent for several years because throughout she remained hopeful that the haryana urban development authority was considering her requirement and shall allot a plot. 4. mr. h.s. awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent, has drawn our attention to a recent decision in subhash chugh v.the state of haryana and others, 115 (1971) plr 232, where similarly on account of litigation between haryana urban development authority and the owners of the land which was to be acquired the idea to develop a particular sector was dropped at karnal and the high court ordered that the petitioner was entitled to allotment of plot. therefore, we do not see any reason to differ with the direction of the district forum ordering allotment of plot to the complainant and this part of the judgment is affirmed. the learned counsel for the complainant has also drawn our attention to rajnish chander sharda v. haryana urban development authority, ii (1995) cpj 70 (nc), where after allotment of a plot it was found that there was a factory of some other person and possession of the plot could not be delivered to the allottee of haryana urban development authority and the haryana urban development authority, cannot be entitled to any extra price for the allotment of the plot which was to be in lieu of the plot which would have been allotted to her earlier. we also affirm the finding of the district forum and order that the complainant shall be allotted a residential plot in sector 23, adjacent or nearby area at the price prevailing at the time of original allotment. the interest @ 18% is also held admissible to smt. raj dulari, complainant in respect of the entire period of about 9 years and this sum shall be adjusted towards the price of the plot. besides this the respondent shall also be entitled to costs rs. 5,000/-. 5. as regards cross appeal no. iii of 1995, the appellant has prayed for compensation on account of escalation during the last 10 years, damages for harassment, costs of litigation rs. 11,000/-and compound interest @ 24% in respect of various claims referred to above. keeping in view the principles laid down by the national commission in case of rajnish chander sharda v. haryana urban development authority, where too an allottee was denied a plot on account of deficiency on the part of haryana urban development authority, we hold that though the cost of construction has increased on the date the plot is now to be allotted but at the same time we are ordering that the old price of plot only is to be paid. we think that the award of compensation on account of increase in cost of   construction especially when no evidence is before us may not be justified. it is further ordered that in this case a sum of rs. 10.000/-shall be payable as damages for the suffering undergone by the complainant. this connected appeal also stands disposed of. 6. announced. the order be communicated to the parties free of charges.
Judgment:

J.B. Garg, President:

1. On a com  plaint instituted by Mrs. Raj Dulari Gupta, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, ordered on 9.10.95 that a 10 marla plot shall be allotted to her in Sector 23, Faridabad and if no plot is available in the aforesaid Sector, then it was to be allotted in the adjacent area/sector. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

2. Briefly the facts are that in response to an advertisement Mrs. Raj Dulari Gupta deposited a sum of Rs. 4,943/by means of a Bank draft dated 17.10.84 as earnest money of a 10 marla plot in sector 23, Faridabad, with the respondent through Indian Bank, Sector 17, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, nominated as the collecting Bank. The complainant wrote letters on 13.6.85 and 6.1.86 requesting the appellants to intimate what was the date for draw of lots. It was on 19.2.86 that the appellant informed that the land comprising Sector 23, Faridabad, was subject matter of a civil litigation and draw of lots shall be possible only after the final decision of the civil suit. It was in July, 1993 that appellants by means of a letter dated 20.7.93 remitted a cheque for Rs. 4.943/dated 20.7.93 to the complainant on 30.7.93. The appellants did put in appearance in the District Forum through their Counsel and filed a reply as well but thereafter the appellants did not oppose the complaint and ultimately the impugned order was passed by the District Forum. In other words, it was not a case that the complaint was decided without affording opportunity.

3. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that there was a dispute with some trespassers and it could not be possible for the appellants to allot a plot in Sector 23, Faridabad. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the appellant was not expected to retain the deposit made by the respondent for several years because throughout she remained hopeful that the Haryana Urban Development Authority was considering her requirement and shall allot a plot.

4. Mr. H.S. Awasthi, learned Counsel for the respondent, has drawn our attention to a recent decision in Subhash Chugh v.The State of Haryana and Others, 115 (1971) PLR 232, where similarly on account of litigation between Haryana Urban Development Authority and the owners of the land which was to be acquired the idea to develop a particular Sector was dropped at Karnal and the High Court ordered that the petitioner was entitled to allotment of plot. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ with the direction of the District Forum ordering allotment of plot to the complainant and this part of the judgment is affirmed. The learned Counsel for the complainant has also drawn our attention to Rajnish Chander Sharda v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, II (1995) CPJ 70 (NC), where after allotment of a plot it was found that there was a factory of some other person and possession of the plot could not be delivered to the allottee of Haryana Urban Development Authority and the Haryana Urban Development Authority, cannot be entitled to any extra price for the allotment of the plot which was to be in lieu of the plot which would have been allotted to her earlier. We also affirm the finding of the District Forum and order that the complainant shall be allotted a residential plot in Sector 23, adjacent or nearby area at the price prevailing at the time of original allotment. The interest @ 18% is also Held admissible to Smt. Raj Dulari, complainant in respect of the entire period of about 9 years and this sum shall be adjusted towards the price of the plot. Besides this the respondent shall also be entitled to costs Rs. 5,000/-.

5. As regards Cross Appeal No. III of 1995, the appellant has prayed for compensation on account of escalation during the last 10 years, damages for harassment, costs of litigation Rs. 11,000/-and compound interest @ 24% in respect of various claims referred to above. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the National Commission in case of Rajnish Chander Sharda v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, where too an allottee was denied a plot on account of deficiency on the part of Haryana Urban Development Authority, we hold that though the cost of construction has increased on the date the plot is now to be allotted but at the same time we are ordering that the old price of plot only is to be paid. We think that the award of compensation on account of increase in cost of   construction especially when no evidence is before us may not be justified. It is further ordered that in this case a sum of Rs. 10.000/-shall be payable as damages for the suffering undergone by the complainant. This connected appeal also stands disposed of.

6. Announced. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges.