HUDA failed to develop and provide basic amenities by the date of delivery. The district forum granted interest on deposited amount and costs and State commission also confirmed the same.This revision also holds no meritsThe petitioner received possession in December, 2001. The complaint was filed within two years on 07-10-2003. The cause of action arose only after getting the possession. This is an admitted fact that the essential amenities were not complete. The learned State Commission has noted that from the letter bearing memo no. 492 dated 09-04-1999, written by the Estate Officer, HUDA to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Division, HUDA, Hisar, it stands clear on record that at the time of offer of possession, the development work did not complete. The petitioner has failed to prove no evidence which may go to show that the work stood completed on or before the possession was handed over to the respondents.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 REVISION PETITION NO.  4122  OF  2009

 (Against the order dated 28-07-2009 in Appeal No. 815/2009    

of the State Commission, Haryana)

                                     

1.    HUDA through its

Estate Officer, Bhiwani

2.    H.U.D.A. through

Its Administrator,

HUDA, Hisar

3.    Chief Administrator,

HUDA, Panchkula

4.    XEN, Electricity Division

HUDA, Hisar

5.    The J.E. Estate Officer,

HUDA, Bhiwani

6.    The XEN, HUDA,

Division No. 2, R

Road & Sewer Division

HUDA, Hisar

7.    The XEN, Horticulture Division

HUDA, Hisar                                                 ........ Petitioner (s)

          Vs.

1.    Ram Singh

S/o Shri Ram Gopal,

R/o 137, New Anaj Mandi

Bhiwani,

Tehsil & District Bhiwani

2.    Satish Singh

S/o Shri Ram Gopal,

R/o 137, New Anaj Mandi

Bhiwani,

Tehsil & District Bhiwani

                                                                           …….Respondent (s)

BEFORE:

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

      HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner                  :     Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate

For the Respondent             :     Mr. Bharat Arora, Advocate

                                                           

Dated :   22^nd      May, 2012

ORDER

PER JUSTICE MR. J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Vide allotment letter dated 03-10-1997, the respondents Ram Singh and Satish Sharma were allotted SCF No. 06 in Town Centre, HUDA, situated near new Grain Market, Bhiwani for a consideration of Rs.8,70,400/-.  The respondent deposited a sum of Rs.8,59,200/- towards the cost of SCF.  The letter of possession of the plot was issued to the complainants on 3^rd December, 1997.  Both the Fora below have come to the conclusion that at the time of offer of possession, the development work did not complete.  Therefore, huge amount of Rs.8,59,200/- which remained with the petitioner – HUDA but the complainants could not get the benefit of the plot till the completion of development work.  The complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bhiwanion 07-10-2003 and prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i)            Compensation worth Rs.10,000/- on account of time spent by them in making representations and visits to their office from time to time.

(ii)          Compensation worth Rs.1.5 lacs on account of escalation in the cost of the construction.

(iii)         Compensation worth Rs.50,000/- on account of unending mental tension and agony and harassment suffered by the complainants due to disputed title of land, encroachment of area, unwanted litigation, etc.

(iv)         Compensation @ Rs. 1 lac per year w.e.f. 1997 till date i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum as the complainants have suffered loss due to non-completion of the development work as per scheme.

(v)          To pay the interest on the amount of Rs.8,59,200/- @ 18% per annum from the date of their respective deposition till its actual payment.

Any other relief which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit may also be awarded to the complainants.”

2.         The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants vide order dated 19-05-2009 and issued the following directions to pay interest on the deposited amount @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date on which the possession was taken i.e. December, 2001 and to pay litigation charges in the sum of Rs.2,200/-.

3.         The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 

4.         We have heard the counsel for the parties.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is barred by time.  It was argued that the allotment letter was issued in the year 1997 and the complaint was filed in the year 2003.

5.         We see no merit in this argument.  The petitioner received possession in December, 2001.  The complaint was filed within two years on 07-10-2003.  The cause of action arose only after getting the possession.  This is an admitted fact that the essential amenities were not complete.  The learned State Commission has noted that from the letter bearing memo no. 492 dated 09-04-1999, written by the Estate Officer, HUDA to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Division, HUDA, Hisar, it stands clear on record that at the time of offer of possession, the development work did not complete.  The petitioner has failed to prove no evidence which may go to show that the work stood completed on or before the possession was handed over to the respondents. 

6.         The revision petition is meritless and hence dismissed.  However, there is no order as to costs.

...…………………..………J

     (J.M. MALIK)

      PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                               

  ..……………….……………

                                                        (SURESH CHANDRA)

                                                                            MEMBER

aj/