HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER
There being identical issues with all seven number of revision petitions, these are being disposed of by a common order. As reported by the Registry, there has been delay of 50 days in filing revision petitions beyond the prescribed period of limitation for which an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by petitioner. As stated in application, there has been procedural delay in processing the matter at different levels and taking a decision to file revision petitions. Having considered the reasons assigned, we hereby condone the delay. The factual matrix have been discussed in detail by the District Forum as well as the State Commission in their orders which we do not want to reiterate in detail. Shorn of details, factual backgrounds are that plots bearing different Nos. in Sector-23, Sonepat, Haryana were allotted to 22 number of allottees and some of the respondents herein were transferees from erstwhile purchasers, on different dates during the year 1991-1999 by HUDA, on deposit of requisite cost and also enhancement charges. However, allegedly, neither infrastructure could be developed in the locality nor possession was delivered. Since construction could not commence by allottees due to delay in making over possession to them by petitioner authority, there had been escalation of cost of materials for construction and incidental cost also. Alleging deficiency on part of petitioner authority, consumer complaints were filed with District Forum which were contested by petitioner authority holding that in terms of clause 7 of allotment letter, possession was to be delivered to the allottees only on completion of development work and that apart, if there be delay in making over possession of plots that was due to theft of electrical wire and electrical equipments. District Forum, however, having over-ruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner authority, accepting claim, directed petitioner authority to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the complainants as compensation along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of completion of instalment till the date of realisation. HUDA petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the complainants for escalation in cost of construction. Award of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the complainants were also made for causing mental agony. That apart, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for travelling expenses and Rs. 2,200/- as litigation charges were also awarded to each of the complainants. Petitioner was directed that after meeting out basic amenities, possession of plots be delivered to complainants within 30 days of the order. Nine (9) number of appeals were preferred by HUDA with the State Commission. Six cross-appeals also were filed by claimants. State Commission upholding finding of District Forum, however, dismissed all these appeals. Reiterating his submission, learned counsel for petitioner authority would strenuously urge that in terms of clause 7 of allotment letter, since possession of plots were to be delivered to the allottees only on completion of development work, if there be delay for want of development work, no deficiency can be attributed in service to the petitioner authority. That apart, theft of electric wire and other materials had also contributed to delay in completion of development work and for which delivery of possession could not be effected. However, this fact cannot be lost sight of that though allotment of plots were made to allottees some times in the years 1991 to 1999, inordinate delay in making over possession of plots for more than 10 years cannot be justified by any cannon of law. Such abnormal delay on lame excuse of theft of electrical materials did not satisfy the conscience. The finding so recorded by State Commission affirming order of District Forum, in that view of the matter, cannot be said to be erroneous. However, learned counsel for parties were at variance about the true import of the first part of order of District Forum directing petitioner authority to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the complainants as compensation along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of completion of instalments till the date of realisation. Admittedly, interest could not be awarded on compensation, but for ambiguity, as to which sum was to carry interest. Having considered submissions of learned counsels for the parties and regard being had to the concurrent finding of fora below, while upholding finding of State Commission on the core issue, we modify the award directing petitioner authority to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the complainants. The rest part of award about HUDA delivering possession of plots on provision of basic amenities within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of this order, which in our view, would be appropriate, would remain unaltered. All these revision petitions are accordingly disposed of in above terms, with no order as to cost.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
