Haryana

StateCommission

A/772/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANTOSH KUMARI - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KAUL

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       772 of 2015

Date of Institution:       10.09.2015

Date of Decision :        20.11.2015

1.     Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.     Administrator, HUDA Complex, Sector-1, Rohtak, Haryana.

3.     Estate Officer, HUDA Complex, Sector-1, Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Santosh Kumari d/o Sh. Amar Singh, Resident of House No.147, Sector-4, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Rajesh Koul, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Samar Singh-representative of respondent in person. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and others-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated July 23^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the opposite parties were directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant/respondent on account of delay in delivering possession of the plot allotted to her. 

2.      Santosh Kumari-complainant/respondent, vide her application dated July 1^st, 1998 (Exhibit R-1) applied for a plot admeasuring 10 Marlas to the HUDA. She was allotted plot No.920 (P), Sector 2(P), Rohtak, vide allotment letter No. 2339 dated April 26^th, 2000. The possession of the plot was offered vide letter No.3354 dated 18^th April, 2003 (Exhibit R-4). However, it was found that the area of the plot was 443 Square Mtrs. instead of 210 Sq. Mtrs. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak, vide letter dated May 20^th, 2003 (Exhibit R-6) directed the complainant to pay Rs.3,92,952/-, that is, the price of the increased 233 Sq.yards area of the plot. The complainant wrote letter dated May 6^th, 2003 (Exhibit R-5) whereby she expressed her inability to pay for the increased area of the plot but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that it was clearly mentioned in condition No.2 of the allotment letter that the approximate area of the plot and its price, were subject to adjustment in accordance with the actual measurement at the time of delivery of possession and the conditions in the allotment letter were binding on both the parties. So, the complainant was liable to pay for the additional area of the plot.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      The solitary contention raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties was that the compensation granted to the complainant was on higher side.

6.      The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants is meaningless.  It is not disputable that the delay in handing over possession of the plot has resultantly led to escalation in the prices of construction and looking to the rates of escalation in the prices of construction material, since the plot was allotted in the year of 2000 and possession was delivered in 2010 and during this period of ten years the prices of the material of construction has increased extensively, the compensation is just and reasonable.

7.      Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered view that the amount awarded to the complainant is just and reasonable. No case for interference is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.12,504/- at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 20.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL