NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
Mohit Bindal —Appellant
versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 173 of 2008
(Against the order dated 07.03.2008 in Complaint Case No. 100/2000 (Hry.)/RBT/18/07 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh)
Decided on 28.05.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Suhaas Joshi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
All development agencies, particularly those which are a part of Government, would make allotments after developing area.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Plot—Change in allotment—Even though no time per se may have been stipulated for handing over possession of plot by Respondent, delay of over 8 years in handing over the same after taking entire money from Appellant-Complainant alongwith interest is totally unreasonable and unjustified—It is expected that all development agencies, particularly those which are a part of Government, would make allotments after developing area so that possession can be handed over to an allottee within a reasonable period which is usually within 2 years or at the most 3 years—Respondent directed to pay 9% interest on sum deposited by Appellant-Complainant in respect of plot allotted to him. (Paras 9 to 11)
Vineeta Rai, Member—This appeal has been filed by Mohit Bindal, Original Complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein challenging the order of that Commission which had dismissed his complaint of deficiency in service against Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Opposite Party before the State Commission and Respondent herein.
2. FACTS :
In the complaint filed by the Appellant (through his father since he was a minor), it was stated that he was initially allotted plot no. 279 in Sector-55, measuring 450 square meters at Gurgaon by the Respondent (HUDA) and subsequently this allotment was changed and he was allotted another plot i.e. plot no. 272 in the same sector vide allotment memo no.11154 dated 17.08.1999, of which he is now the owner. Appellant-Complainant had paid the entire amount of Rs.4,81,140/- towards the cost of the aforesaid plot and Rs.9549/- as interest on delayed payment. Later the price of the plot was enhanced by Rs.3,45,993/- vide letter dated 24.09.1997 and Appellant-Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,11,393.70 as principal amount and Rs.88,322.40 as interest, thus totaling Rs.3,99,716.10. In this way, he paid total sum of Rs.8,90,403/- i.e. Rs.7,92,533.70 as principal amount and a sum of Rs.97,869.40 as interest. Since Respondent had received the entire amount of payment from the Appellant-Complainant, including interest, and had failed to hand over the possession of the plot for over 8 years because of which Appellant-Complainant could not construct his house and Respondent had probably used this amount for their commercial purpose, Appellant-Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Respondent be directed to (i) immediately deliver the possession of the plot no. 272, Sector-55 at Gurgaon; (ii) pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount including interest till the filing of this complaint @ Rs.6,02,087.81 and thereafter to pay interest @ 24% till the date of possession of the plot; and (iii) waive interest of Rs.97,869.40 already paid and adjust the same towards the enhanced cost of the land. Damages on account of harassment and litigation costs were also sought.
3. Respondent on being served filed a written reply contesting the complaint and denied the allegation that the plot was not fully developed. In fact, Appellant-Complainant had taken possession of the plot on 10.10.2001 vide letter dated 3288. The enhanced amount was sought by the Respondent from Appellant-Complainant because a case was filed by the land owners against the Respondent seeking more compensation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is presently pending. It was also stated that the Appellant-Complainant was not entitled to approach the State Commission directly and he should have availed of the arbitration proceedings as provided under the HUDA Act, 1977.
4. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it partly allowed the complaint by observing as follows:
“12. A perusal of detailed statement of payment annexure-3 and annexure-5 shows that the complainant had paid the original principal amount as well as enhanced amount upto 9.5.2000 i.e. before the delivery of the possession on 10.10.2001. The complainant had also paid Rs.97869.40 as interest. This amount was not recoverable from the complainant in view of clause-6 of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter as possession had not been handed over for a period of more than 9 years. It is true that out of the enhanced amount of Rs.345993/- vide letter dated 24.9.97, complainant had paid Rs.311393.70 and in this way Rs.34599.30 were paid as less but he had paid Rs.97869.40 as interest in excess which he was not liable to pay. Therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.63270.40 after