The delayed possession of an allotted plot constitutes deficiency in service, and the complainant is entitled to compensation for escalation in construction costs and mental agony.

Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member—This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.7.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) in the Complaint Case No. 1235 of 1998. The District Forum-II has allowed the complaint with consolidate costs of Rs. 25,000/- and the following directions had been issued to the appellant/opposite party.

(i) To pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the offer of possession of alternate plot is made to the complainant.

(ii) Pay Rs. 2.25 lacs on account of increase in the cost of construction.

2. The respondent/complainant, Smt. Shashi Jain, w/o late Shri A.K. Jain, r/o H. No. 336, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh was allotted a residential plot No. 1048-P, Sector - 22, Gurgaon as per allotment letter dated 15.6.1987. The respondent/complainant had made full payment towards the cost of the plot. Inspite of making full payment the respondent/complainant did not get the physical possession of the plot. However, she received a memo dated 6.7.1998 from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, appellant No. 1 asking the consent of the respondent/complainant for the allotment of an alternative plot by draw of lots. The respondent/complainant rejected the offer and then she received another letter dated 4.9.1998 from the Estate Officer, Gurgaon (appellant No. 1) that the possession could not be delivered due to “plot not available at site after demarcation”. The respondent/complainant, Smt. Shashi Jain wrote number of letters for giving her the physical possession of the plot but all was in vain. She was finally given possession of alternative plot No. 1053-P, Sector 22 vide memo No. 10967 dated 29.7.1999 after a lapse of 11 years. She suffered financial loss on account of escalation in the cost of construction and mental and physical torture. Accordingly, she filed complaint before the District Forum-II and prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allot alternative plot in Sector-22, Gurgaon on the same terms and conditions as contained in the letter of allotment (Annexure P-1), in the event of the alternative plot not being available in Sector-22, Gurgaon, some other plot in the alternative be allotted in the adjoining developed sector subject to the same terms and conditions and rates as mentioned in Annexure P-1. The complainant also claimed interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount deposited by her from the date of deposit till date of delivery of alternative plot. She claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lacs on account of escalation in the cost of construction and a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to her due to deficient and negligence services on the part of the respondents.

3. The notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate. The record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-II. We have perused the impugned order and heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent. We have also gone through the record of the complaint case.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the District Forum-II committed an error in overlooking the fact that the delay in delivering the possession to the complainant was due to non-development of the area which is also the Condition. No. 7 incorporated in the terms and conditions of allotment letter. He submitted that in view of this Condition No. 7, there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant due to the delay in handing over of possession. The appellants had written to the complainant/respondent in a number of letters asking her consent for alternative plot as the plot allotted to her was not available at site after demarcation and as such was under litigation but she did not gi