JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) A plot of land bearing No. 13 was allotted to the complainant in Sector 1 of Palam Vihar, against deposit of Earnest Money amounting to Rs.50,860/-. The allotment was made by draw of lots and the result of the draw was communicate to the complainant vide letter dated 17.2.2003. He was asked to submit certain documents before the allotment letter could be issued to him. Thus, though no formal allotment letter was issued to the complainant, the result of the draw of lots was duly communicated to him. The complainant however, did not submit the requisite documents even despite subsequent letter of the petitioner dated 13.5.2003 and thereafter approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the complainant had failed to submit the documents required from him. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant and having directed the petitioner to hand over the physical possession of the plot to the complainant, after obtaining the requisite documents from him, along with compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.8.2017, the petitioner is before this Commission. 3. It is not in dispute that the plot No.13 was allotted to the complainant in Sector-1 of Palam Vihar in a draw of lots held on 8.11.2002. The only ground for resisting the complaint was that the complainant had failed to submit the requisite documents in terms of the letter dated 17.2.2003. However, it is not in dispute that the allotment was not cancelled on account of the complainant having not submitted the aforesaid documents. If there was delay in submitting the documents, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and it was only the complainant, who suffered on account of the delay in delivery of possession of the plot to him. Therefore, there is no reason that the petitioner should not accept the requisite documents even at the belated stage and give possession of the plot on receiving the requisite payment, subject to verification of the documents to be submitted by the complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant did not pay the balance amount which would have been payable had a formal letter of allotment been issued to him. If this is so, the petitioner, in my opinion, would be entitled to appropriate interest as per its rules on the amount which would have been payable by the complainant, had a formal allotment letter been issued to him on his furnishing the desired documents. But, the fora below in my opinion, were justified in directing the delivery of possession of the plot on submission of the desired documents. This is more so, when no direction has been issued to the petitioner not to charge any interest on the amount which the complainant would have paid had a formal allotment letter been issued to him. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the fora below. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. It is however, made clear that the petitioner would be entitled not only to verify the documents to be submitted by the complainant in terms of the orders passed by the fora below, it will also be entitled to recover interest as per its rules, on the amount which would have been payable by the complainant had a formal allotment letter been issued to him by the petitioner. The revision petition stands disposed of. |
