IMPORTANT POINT
Long delay cannot be condoned without plausible explanation.

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition challenges the order dated 04.03.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in F.A. No. 1073 of 2006 against the order dated 13.12.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The State Commission disposed of this appeal filed by the officers concerned of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) by observing, inter alia as under:

“xxxxx

The facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with documentary evidence reveal that it is a (sic – case of?) highhandedness of officials of HUDA by taking different stand in case of other allottee, i.e., Baljinder Kaur of the same sector. The documentary evidence produced on record reflects about handing over the physical possession of the plot to the complainant by taking various stands before the State Commission, on the date when this appeal was originally disposed of, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties stated that the physical possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant on 4.9.2008. Copy of letter bearing Memo No.31216 dated 27.6.2008 issued by Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad reveals that possession of plot No.2430 Sector-2, Faridabad was offered to the complainant subject to decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, but on the said letter there is an endorsement made by the complainant that “Had it been only for taking physical possession, why then to say subject to decision of Apex Court.” This offer is again conditional and not a clear offer of possession. Another letter for offer of possession was issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad with respect to the same plot vide letter bearing Memo No.31753 and 4.11.2009.

Thus, we feel that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for not delivering possession of the plot to the complainant within the stipulated period after completing all the developments works in the area and the District Forum has rightly accepted the complaint.

Now coming to the point of granting compensation with respect to the escalation in the cost of construction, we have gone through the impugned order. There is no cogent and convincing evidence led by the complainant by way of report of an expert Civil Engineer to prove the actual increase in the cost of construction from the date of allotment of plot till the date of offer of possession. This relief granted by the District Forum is not sustainable and the same is set aside.

With the above modification in the impugned order, rest of the order passed by the District Forum is maintained.”

2. The respondent in this petition was the complainant before the District Forum. He averred that plot no. 2430 measuring 250 sq. yards located in Sector 2, Faridabad was allotted to him by HUDA under allotment letter no. 2256 dated 24.11.1998. However, HUDA did not deliver the possession of this plot after completing the development works in this area, as a result of which he could not raise construction on the plot within the stipulated period. Despite this delay in delivering possession of the plot of land, HUDA levied penal interest, etc., on the due installments of the balance cost of the plot as well as extension fee for extending the period to raise construction. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the HUDA, the complainant prayed for several reliefs. HUDA opposed the complaint mainly on the ground that possession of the plot had been offered to the complainant after completing the development works in the area under its letter dated 25.07.2003. However, the complainant defaulted in paying the due installments and delayed construction on the plot beyond the period stipulated therefor.

3. After appraisal of the pleadings, evidence and documents produced by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint with the following directions:

“1. The responden