A consumer is entitled to compensation for delay in delivery of possession, interest on the price deposited, compensation for mental agony and escalation in cost of construction.

Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—Haryana Urban Development Authority sold Plot No. 1318, Sector 21, Gurgaon to Smt. Promila Verma w/o Sqn. Ldr. P.K. Verma on 15.11.1985 and the details of the price paid totalling Rs. 84,988.15 have been given in para 3 of the complaint. The possession of the plot was not delivered because the land in question was found to be a disputed property and some litigation between Haryana Urban Development Authority and private owners of the land was stated to be pending. Thereafter, the Haryana Urban Development Authority allotted a Plot No. 161, Sector 5, Gurgaon in lieu of the originally allotted plot but it started demanding price @ Rs. 2,139.89 per sq. meter. The District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on 11.4.1997 ordered that the price payable by the allottee shall be at the old rate of Rs. 66.12 per sq. meter and also held that complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the price deposited till date of delivery of possession of the new plot. Besides this a sum of Rs. 30,000/ on account of expenses incurred on the journies involving the personal visits, correspondence etc. and another sum of Rs. 30,000/ as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment and another sum of Rs. 1.00 lack on account of escalation in the cost of construction and a further a sum of Rs. 2,000/ as costs. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted.

2. In this case some facts are no longer in dispute inasmuch as the original 10 Marla plot bearing No. 1318, Sector 21, Gurgaon was allotted to Smt. Promila Verma on 15.11.1985 and that for reasons known to Haryana Urban Development Authority it could not hand over its possession. Now the Chief Administrator of Haryana Urban Development Authority has allotted plot of equal area at Gurgaon in a different sector but wants its price at the new rate. It is shocking that Haryana Urban Development Authority a public undertaking slumbered for about 10 years after selling the plot to the respondent on 15.11.1985 knowing that it was not in its possession. In order to wriggle out of its own lapse Haryana Urban Development Authority has now made available a plot of equal area to Smt. Promila Verma wife of a serving officer in the Indian Air Force. There is no reason or justification for demanding the price at the new rate to an old customer where the vendor himself was responsible for the loss caused to a bona fide customer. The respondent Sqn. Ldr. P.K. Verma, husband and special attorney of the complainant, who argued the case himself has drawn our attention to the decision in Smt. C.K. Wahi v. State of Haryana etc. decided on 28.5.1993 by the Haryana Commission where almost in similar circumstances an alternative plot was allotted in Sector 31, Faridabad on the same terms and conditions as already conveyed. On our enquiry the respon dent specifically told that it was case of purchase and not allotment from discretionary quota.

3. Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant has not placed on record any Railway tickets, other receipts of conveyance charges etc. spent by him. It is fact that such documents have not been placed on record. However, Sqn. Ldr. P.K. Verma, the husband who argued the case in person has clarified that during the last several years he remained posted at far off places such as Madras and Trivandrum and he, his wife and sometimes one of them had been coming to Gurgaon and Chandigarh to follow this dispute with HUDA and ultimately they were compelled to institute the complaint in the District Forum. In the circumstances of the case where the plot was originally allotted long ago on 15.11.1985, the expenses awarded in the sum of Rs. 30,000/ do not require any interference.

4. As regards a further sum of Rs. 30.000/ awarded by the Forum on account of compensation for mental torture claimed in Clause 'B' of Para 7 of the complaint, the sum of Rs. 30,000/ is hereby reduced to Rs. 5,000/