Deficiency in service and compensation for escalation in the cost of construction and mental agony.

Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— Complainant Kanwar Sohit has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Haryana Urban Development Authority in the matter of delivery of vacant physical possession of the plot allotted to him and in completing the development projects and for compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction etc.

2. According to the complainant he was allotted plot No. 2178 measuring one Kanal in Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal, on 17.5.1987 for a sum of Rs. 1,39,671/-. The complainant has already paid a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/-, i.e. certain amount in excess of the price of the plot, yet the vacant physical possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant. Later on HUDA realised that the plot allotted to the complainant in fact did not exist on the map of HUDA and had not even been carved out. Therefore, in order to rectify the mistake, they allotted another plot No. 2167-B in Sector 7 in lieu of the plot already allotted but even the possession of this plot was not delivered to the complainant due to lack of demarcation and completion of necessary development projects. During this period the cost of construction had risen manifold and due to escalation of the same the complainant suffered a huge monetary loss in addition to the mental harassment etc. Aggrieved against this, the complainant prayed for the delivery of physical possession of the alternative plot and to complete the necessary development projects and to award suitable compensation to him to meet the escalation in the cost of construction as also for mental harassment and monetary loss suffered by him.

3. In their reply, HUDA almost admitted the factual position but pleaded that earlier there were some encroachments on the plot allotted to the complainant and there being lot of obstruction on the plot, vacant physical possession of the plot could not be delivered, but now the same have been got removed and the HUDA was in a position to deliver the vacant physical possession of the alternative plot. The complainant filed the replication along with the documentary evidence regarding the difference in the cost of construction by way of escalation and copies of various decisions by way of precedents etc.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the complainant has been successful in establishing the deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in the matter of allotment of plot, delivery of vacant physical possession, removal of encroachments, completion of development works and payment of interest on amounts deposited by the complainant from time to time etc.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, we allow the complaint by directing HUDA to—

(i) deliver the vacant physical possession of the alternative plot now allotted to the complainant at the original price on the same terms and conditions as it was originally allotted because it is only an exchange in lieu of the old plot;

(ii) to complete the development projects in and around the area of the plot in question to enable the complainant to start construction;

(iii) to allow to the complainant reasonable time for completing the construction for which no extension fee shall be claimed;

(iv) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction;

(v) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for monetary loss and mental agony suffered by him; and

(vi) to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the above directions within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order.

Complaint disposed of.

_