JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana dated 05.05.2016 in First Appeal No. 229/2015.

2.         Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Panchkula alleging that pursuant to his application, the petitioner was allotted plot No. 447, Sector 13 Bahadurgah vide allotment letter no. 10341 dated 06.10.2008.  As per the terms and conditions of allotment, in the event of insistence of allotment, the complainant was supposed to pay 25% of the agreed consideration amount Rs.27,77,000/- inclusive of the earnest money paid at the time of application for allotment.  The complainant paid 25% of the consideration amount within 30 days of the issue of allotment letter.

3.         According to terms and conditions , the balance amount was to be paid in six equated annual instalments @ 9% provided that first instalment shall be payable on expiry of one year from the date of issue of allotment letter and the interest shall be payable on the unpaid account from the date of offer of possession @ 12% p.a. or as decided by the opposite party / authority.  Rule 10 (1) of the terms and conditions under the heading ‘’Other notes’’ provided that in case the opposite party failed to offer possession of allotted plot to the complainant, the opposite party shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. or at the rate fixed by the authority  fro time to time on the deposited amount paid by the allottee after expiry of three years from the date of allotment till the date of offer of possession and in  that case, the allottee was not required to pay further instalment.  The payment of balance instalment would commence only after the possession of the plot is offered to the allottee.

4.         It is alleged that executive engineer HUDA Bahadurgarh vide letter no. 670 dated  13.06.2011 offered possession of plot to the complainant and called upon him to pay instalments alongwith interest as per the terms and conditions.  The complainant, therefore, started making payment.  The opposite party gave possession of the plot to the complainant on 05.07.2011 vide memo no. 320 dated 05.07.2011.  Later on it was found that possession of plot was offered due to inadvertence.  Accordingly, the offer of delivery of possession was withdrawn  through email dated 12.03.2014 due to non completion of the development work. As the complainant was not informed about the withdrawal of offer of possession before 12.03.2014, the complainants made following payments:

5.         It is alleged by the complainant that as the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of the subject plot to the complainant within three years of the date of allotment letter, it is liable to pay interest @ 9% on the 25% of the consideration amount paid within 30 days of the issue of allotment letter in terms of the terms and conditions of the contract.  It is further alleged that opposite party is also liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. in respect of the instalment paid by the complainant because of inadvertent issue of the possession letter dated 05.07.2011 and withdrawal of the same from the respective dates of payments of instalments till the delivery of possession on 06.10.2014.

6.         On the aforesaid allegations, the complainant has filed consumer complaint seeking following reliefs:

1.         Direct the respondent to refund the undue amount of Rs.8,90,087/- got deposited from me with them by offering the possession of the plot inadvertently and asking me to deposit the further instalments with interest; along with 18% p.a. interest as worked out in para 15 (b) above and thereafter continue to pay the interest of Rs.1602/- every year till refund of that amount;

2.         Direct the respondent to pay the interest ( Rs. 5,38,911/- upto 06.10.2014) on the amount Rs.17,35,625/- which was due to be paid by me to them upto three years after the allotment at 9% p.a. as worked out in para 15 (a) above and thereafter continue to pay Rs.1,56,206/- p.a. as interest every year regularly till offer of the possession of the plot to me.

            Thus an amount of Rs.16,82,787/- ( Rs.8,90,087/- + 2,53,789/- + Rs.5,38,911/-) has become due upto 06.10.2014 and so the respondent be directed to pay me the same immediately;

3.         Direct the respondent to offer the possession of the plot after completing its development works at the earliest possible.  The likely date of offer of possession of the plot is also intimated by the respondent to me.

4.         Direct the respondent to pay an adequate amount as compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs to me for the mental agony and harassment caused to me because of their such an undesirable attitude in dealing with the complainant (consumer).

5.         Award Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.

            It is further prayed that such other orders or directions which this Hon’ble Forum may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.”

7.         The opposite party on being served filed written statement controverting the allegations in the complaint.  The opposite party, however, admitted allotment of subject plot to the complainant as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter and detailed in the complaint.  It was admitted that due to inadvertent mistake, possession letter was wrongly issued in favour of the complainant in the year 2011 which was subsequently withdrawn. According to the opposite party, as per the condition stipulated in the contract, the opposite party is required to pay interest on the amount paid by the complainant @ 9% p.a. from 06.10.2011 upto 30.11.2014 i.e. the date on which offer of possession of subject plot was given to the complainant after completing the development work including water supply, sewerage, electricity and approach road to the plot.

8.         Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence of the parties allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party as under:

“a.        OP shall refund the amount of Rs.8,90,087/- with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit till the payment thereof comes about;

b.         OP shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony;

c.         OP shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as the cost of litigation

            The OP No.1 shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date of its communication to it comes out.  A copy of this order shall be forwarded free of cost to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

9.         Feeling aggrieved, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission on reconsideration of evidence concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

10.       Petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because the State Commission has declined to grant the relief of possession of plot to the complainant despite the complainant paid the consideration amount.

11.       In order to appreciate this contention, it would be useful to have a look on the relevant part of the order of the State Commission dealing with relief of possession of subject plot claimed by the petitioner.  The relevant observations are reproduced as under:

“During the course of arguments it was told that litigation is pending qua this plot and that is why the possession could not be delivered.  Complainant has failed to rebut this argument.  When litigation is pending OP cannot be directed to deliver possession by this fora.  The findings of leaned District Fora are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. “

12.       On reading of the above, it is evident that State Commission declined the above said relief of possession taking note of the litigation pending between certain persons and the opposite party in respect of the subject project land.  The approach of the State Commission obviously is wrong because if the relief of possession was not possible, the State Commission ought to have given some alternative relief to the complainant.  Be that as it may, it is undisputed that during the pendency of this petition, possession of the subject plot has been offered to the petitioner / complainant on 28.04.2017.  The petitioner has contended that aforesaid offer is not a valid offer for the reason that development work of the subject project is not yet complete and that the construction of the approach road to the plot and electrification of the project is yet to be completed.

13.       The opposite party / respondent in this regard has filed affidavit of Shri Vikas Kumar, Estate Officer, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar dated 04.01.2018 wherein the Estate Officers Vikas Kumar has stated thus:

2.         That the contents of para are partly correct and needs no reply.  It is submitted that joint inspection of the site of plot bearing no.447, Sector 13, Bahadurgarh was done on 22.09.2017 jointly by petitioner, counsel for the respondent, Mr. Vijay Kumar Rathi, E.O. HUDA, Bahadurgarh and Yashwant Singh, Junior Engineer, Huda, Bahadurgarh.

3.         That the contents of para 2 are partly correct and needs no reply.  It is submitted that the transmission line was erected on 18.09.2017.

4.         That the contents of para are partly correct and needs no reply.  It is submitted that road is complete and approachable as per the terms and conditions of the offer letter dated 06.10.2008.  It is submitted that the roads near the plot and approaching roads towards the plot are in perfect condition.

5.         That the contents of para 4 needs no reply.

6.         That in terms of para 5, it is submitted that site is fully developed, i.e. roads are fully developed, the electricity poles and transmission line have already been erected for providing electricity, sewerage facilities and water supply are complete and accessible.

7.         It is submitted that in compliance of order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, the Respondent has already paid a sum of Rs.11,07,834/- ( rupees eleven lac seven thousand eight hundred and thirty four only) vide cheque no. 000108 dated 25.10.2016 which was debited from the account of respondent on 09.01.2017 and the balance amount of Rs.10,03,065/-  vide cheque no. 000123 dated 30.01.2017 which was debited from the account of respondent on 09.02.2017.

14.       On reading of the above, it is clear that electricity transmission line has already been erected, the roads are fully developed and sewage facility as also the water supply are complete.  Thus, in my view, the offer of possession of subject plot cannot be termed as unjustified.  It may be noted that alongwith affidavit of the Estate Officer, the opposite party has annexed copy of letter dated 03.01.2018 sent by Sub Divisional Engineer Huda, Electric Sub Division Bahadurgarh to the Estate Officer which also indicate that electrification of the concerned area has been done and the electricity supply is being provided to the plots in the project, if demanded. 

15.       Petitioner has failed to show any cogent evidence which may indicate that the petitioner has suffered loss to the extent of 18% interest p.a. because of the aforesaid wrongful payment received by the respondent / opposite party.   It may be noted that so far as relief of refund of Rs.8,90,087/- is concerned, it  has become infructuous because undisputedly the petitioner has received offer of possession vide letter dated 28.04.2017.  In view of the reason detailed above, I do not find any irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  However, it is established on record that offer of possession of subject plot has already been given to the petitioner / complainant vide letter dated 28.04.2017.  The order of refund of Rs.8,90,087/- which was paid against the consideration money is not justified.

16.       The petitioner has further prayed for enhancement of interest payable to him w.e.f. 06.10.2011 from 9% to 15%. On perusal of the impugned order and the terms and conditions of the contract particularly clause 10 (1), the State Commission has rightly awarded interest as per the clear stipulation that in case of failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period of three years from the date of allotment, Huda will pay interest @ 9% p.a. ( or as may be fixed by authority from time to time) on the amount deposited by the allottee after the expiry of three  years till the date of offer of possession.   Thus, I do not find any justification in the request for enhancement.

17.       In view of the reasons given, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.