HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PANCHKULA vs VINOD KUMAR

-BOTH the appeals have arisen out of common order dated 26. 7. 2007 whereby complaints filed by respondents (complainants) were accepted with costs of Rs. 1,100 each and were granted compensation of Rs. 50,000 each and further appellants were directed to issue allotment letters to respondents under the same terms and conditions of scheme under which they became successful in draw of lots.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Haryana Urban Development Authority had floated a scheme offering freehold residential plots in its various urban estates to employees of Haryana Government, its Boards/corporations and State Cooperative Banks by floating a scheme for which date of commencement of booking was 18. 1. 1999 and closing date of booking was 18. 2. 1999. The copy of the brochure is Annexure C-l. Sh. Vinod Kumar and Rakesh Khandelwal who are serving as Accounts Assistant in the office of Estate Officer, Gurgaon, being eligible for allotment under Government servants reserved quota and falling in category ''a'' applied for plots. Sh. Vinod Kumar applied for 10 marla plot in Sector-46, Gurgaon vide application No. 00363 along with demand draft of Rs. 31,680 as earnest money, the copy of the application form and affidavit are Annexures C-2 and C-3 respectively. Sh. Rakesh Khandelwal, respondent (complainant) applied for 6 marla plot in Sector-46, Gurgaon vide application No. 13585 supported by affidavit along with demand draft of Rs. 17,496 dated 17. 2. 1999. Their applications were duly registered. The draw was held on 27. 5. 1999 and both of them were successful in draw of lots. Sh. Vinod Kumar was allotted plot No. 1638-B in Sector-46, Gurgaon measuring 10 marla while Rakesh Khandelwal was allotted plot No. 2101b in Sector-46, Gurgaon measuring 6 marla. They were duly informed by the Estate Officer who asked them to submit documents in order to enable the authorities to issue allotment letters in their names.

It was next averred that in the meantime, some complaint was received and inquiry was conducted and by the order of Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, allotment to both of them was kept in abeyance till decision of the inquiry. They had written repeated letters for the issuance of allotment letters but in vain.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, complainant Vinod Kumar filed complaint case No. 416 of 2007 and Rakesh Khandelwal filed complaint case No. 417 of 2007. Ops contested the complaints and admitted allotment of aforesaid plots to the respondents but asserted that allotment letters were not issued as complaints were received that the respondents being officials of HUDA had committed irregularity and got plots allotted by fraud and thus issuance of allotment letter was kept in abeyance till the inquiry was completed by the vigilance department. The inquiry report of vigilance department attached. Therefore, they prayed that there was no deficiency on their part.

PARTIES adduced evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 26. 7. 2007 decided both complaints and accepted with costs of Rs. 1,100 each and directed appellants to issue allotment letters to respondents on the same terms and conditions of scheme under which they had become successful in draw of lots and further awarded to each of them compensation of Rs. 50,000 for harassment and mental agony, etc. and substantial escalation in the cost of construction. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties (HUDA, etc.) have filed separate appeals which are decided by common judgment as same question of law and fact is involved.

WE have heard Counsel for appellants Sh. S. P. Singh and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that Sh. Vinod Kumar and Sh. Rakesh Khandelwal are employees of HUDA and as such Haryana Government employees and were posted at the relevant time at Gurgaon. It is further an admitted fact that they were allotted plots under Government servant reserved quota scheme as they had applied for plots i. e. Sh. Vinod Kumar applied for 10 marla in Sector-46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon while Sh. Rakesh Khandelwal for 6 marla in Sector-46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. They had deposited the requisite earnest money. There is also no dispute about it that under the scheme draw was held on 27. 1. 1999 and both were successful in draw of lots. However, issuance of letters of allotment were withheld under the order of Chief Administrator, HUDA as in the meantime complaints were received that draw of lots had favoured the employees of HUDA and they had got plots by practising fraud. It is not the case that they were already members of Group Housing Society or had been allotted plots in any urban estates of Haryana and as such were not eligible to get plots under GSRQ Scheme. The Chief Administrator, HUDA had written letter to Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon to issue allotment letters to other allottees except 9 employees of HUDA including respondents who were successful in draw of lots in Sectors-45 and 46, Gurgaon. There was no adverse entry regarding integrity in the record of respondents for the last 10 years or less depending upon the service tenure.

A perusal of Annexure A-4 dated 17. 9. 99 shows that a inquiry was conducted by the vigilance department and it was found that some bungling had taken place in draw of lots but no basis had been laid for such a finding qua respondents. Before cancellation of draw of lots in their favour, notice was not given to the respondents to show cause as to why allotment should not be cancelled. The letter Annexure A-6 dated 23. 2. 2001 from Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to Estate Officer, HUDA Gurgaon only shows that he had ordered that allotment letters be issued to all successful applicants except 9 HUDA employees who were also successful in draw of lots in Sectors 45 and 46, Gurgaon. At the cost of repetition, we may state that no letter has been produced on file that show cause notice was given to respondents and their explanation was called. In the absence of show-cause notice, their plots could not have been cancelled and as such cancellation is bad and against principle of natural justice. No opportunity was given to them to explain their position.

COUNSEL for appellants contended that respondents were not consumers as letters of allotment were not issued to them. In our opinion, contention of learned Counsel is not tenable. Respondents are consumers. It hardly matters that formal letters of allotment were not issued to the respondents because it was admitted case that they were successful in draw of lots and plots were allotted to them. Hence, respondents (complainants) are competent to file complaint. Counsel for appellants contended that complaints are time-barred as allotments were cancelled in their favour vide letter Annexure A-6 dated 23. 2. 2001 and complaints were filed on 23. 5. 2007 and as such beyond a period of two years. In our opinion the submission is untenable. Letter Annexure A6 does not show that allotments had been cancelled. It only shows that allotments had been withheld. No letter was sent to respondents that their allotments had been cancelled. After waiting for a sufficient period of six years they filed complaints and as such cannot be said to be time-barred by any stretch of imagination.

COUNSEL for appellants next contended that respondents are not entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 each awarded for harassment, mental agony and enhancement in cost of construction, etc. in view of authority of Hon''ble National Commission titled Delhi Development Authority v. Sanjay Mehta, I (1999) CPJ 4 (NC)=1999 (1) CPC 175. It is true that National Commission had quashed grant of Rs. 5,000 as damages as it was held that adequate relief had been given to the complainant by holding that flat be allotted at the rates prevailing in 1990. In the said authority, point regarding escalation in cost of construction was not considered as it was a flat (constructed unit ). In the present case, certainly there is steep rise in cost of construction after the year 1999. Therefore, award of compensation of Rs. 50,000 to each of them is not on higher side. We have gone through the order of District Consumer Forum. We concur with the same and hold that there is no force in the appeals and as such same are dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeals dismissed.