HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President &
S. Kulwant Singh, Member
B.L. BHARDWAJ—Appellant
versus
THE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA & ORS.—Respondents
F.A. Nos. 198 & 201 of 1994—Decided on 2.6.1994
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - ALLOTMENT OF PLOT - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - HUDA'S FAILURE TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF ALLOTTED PLOT - COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a Class I Officer of the Government of Haryana, applied for the allotment of a plot in Sector 23-A, Gurgaon. The plot was allotted to him in April 1986, and he paid the full price, including the additional amount for a preferential plot. However, in September 1987, the allotment was cancelled. After several representations, the cancellation was withdrawn in November 1989, but the complainant was allotted a different plot, which was not preferential. He again made representations, and in April 1991, he was allotted another preferential plot. However, this allotment was also cancelled in September 1991. Finally, in August 1992, the complainant was informed that he would be allotted Plot No. 1937 (Preferential), but this plot had already been allotted to another person. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking a direction to HUDA to allot him a suitable plot and to pay compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum found that HUDA had committed a patent deficiency in service by repeatedly cancelling and reallocating the complainant's plot. It directed HUDA to deliver possession of an alternative plot to the complainant in the same sector or an adjoining one on the same terms and awarded compensation of Rs. 11,000/-.
Issues: 1. Whether HUDA was liable for deficiency in service in its allotment of plots to the complainant? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the District Forum was adequate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that HUDA was liable for deficiency in service in its allotment of plots to the complainant. It noted that HUDA had repeatedly cancelled and reallocated the complainant's plot, causing him harassment and mental agony. 2. The court held that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was inadequate. It enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000/-.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complainant's appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded to him to Rs. 30,000/-. It dismissed HUDA's appeal with costs.
Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President— First Appeal Nos. 198 and 201 of 1994 are directed against the same order of the District Forum, Gurgaon partly allowing the complaint. The issues of fact and law being identical, this order will govern both of them.
2. The case discloses a blatent deficiency in the services undertaken and extended out by the H.U.D.A. The salient facts which stand out are that the complainant admittedly was a Class I Officer of the Government of Haryana and impending his retirement, he applied to the Chief Administrator, HUDA for the allotment of a plot. By an allotment order dated the 4th of April, 1986, plot No. 1561 (preferential) in Sector 23-A, Gurgaon was duly allotted to him. Because of its preferential nature, extra payment of 10% of the price was to be paid and the entire sale consideration including the additional amount on account of the enhancement of the price by the Courts was duly tendered and accepted in accordance with the conditions of allotment. Apparently, after his retirement in 1987, the complainant to his consternation, received intimation vide letter dated 11th of September, 1987 that the allotment aforesaid had been cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, representation were made against the said cancellation, but it took the HUDA nearly two years to with draw the said cancellation on the 20th of November, 1989 vide Annexure P-4. However, the consumer-complainant was not still left in peace and a year later by a communication dated the 21st of November, 1990, he was informed that his preferential Plot No. 1561 had been substituted unilaterally by an altogether different Plot No. 4241, which was not preferential. Inevitably, the complainant again ran from pillar to post to have this illegal substitution rectified and brought to the notice of the authorities that another Plot No. 1937 preferential in the same sector was lying unallotted and he may be given the same, in lieu of his original preferential plot. That request of the respondent was acceded to and he was then allotted Plot No. 1937 (Preferential) vide letter dated the 20th of April, 1991 Annexure P-6.
3. It would appear that not content with the above, HUDA yet again cancelled the aforesaid allotment of Plot No. 1937 vide letter dated the 5th of September, 1991 (Annexure 1). The complainant again had to leave no stone unturned for seeking redress against the latest hardship and he heaved a sigh of relief, when he was informed that it had been decided to allot him Plot No. 1937 (Preferential) vide letter dated the 14th of August, 1992. However, in the meantime in July 1992, the said plot had been allotted to one Mrs. Kishna Jain, with the result that he was left completely in the lurch despite having paid the full price of a preferential site originally allotted to him in April 1986. Thereafter the complaint was preferred before the District Forum for a direction to the HUDA to allot him a suitable plot and to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and peculiar loss suffered by him for the trouble of not getting a plot in 7-8 years, and also a sum of Rs. 50,000/- because the costs of construction of a house had jumped man-folds meanwhile.
4. On notice, the HUDA was compelled to admit the broad factual matrix alleged by the complainant. It was vaguely pleaded that due to some policy decision, the allotment of the original Plot No. 1561 was cancelled, but later on the said cancellation was revoked again on account of some policy decision. The further plea was that the said plot was omitted from the lay out plan as it no longer existed on the site and hence Plot No. 4249 was allotted to the complainant, which again was substituted by Plot No. 1937. However, this allotment was also withdrawn and as such Plot No. 4249 in Sector 23 stood allotted to the complainant. It was virtually admitted that by patent in advertance a plot already allotted to Smt. Krishna Jain has been allotted and the plea taken wa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.