KRISHNA KHURANA vs ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA, HISAR

THE substantially successful complainant has chosen to prefer this appeal to seek a further compensation of Rupees two lacs only in addition to the relief already granted by the District Forum, Hisar.

SINCE we are firmly of the view that there is no merit in the conjectural claim for further compensation by the appellant it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts and merits of the case. It would appear that as many as 75 allottees of the residential plots in the Police Lines Hisar and other Sectors of the HUDA had preferred complaints which were all clubbed factual allegation was that the respondent-HUDA had developed a colony in the Police Lines area at Hisar and it auctioned plots on different dates, and accordingly not only the complainant but many others were successful in getting the bids finalised in their favour. They had then and there made the payment of 10% of the price and thereafter deposited 15% of the said price and the allotment letters were duly issued to them. It was the common plea that according to the terms and conditions announced at the spot possession of plots in the developed condition had to be delivered within one year and further more as per Clause 5 of the allotment letter the possession had to be delivered on development. However neither the area was in fact developed nor had HUDA come forward to deliver the possession of the plots. The prominent grievance was that the complainant had been paying the amount of instalments according to schedule and in making default therein the respondent HUDA had charged an interest @ 10% from them. Notwithstanding this HUDA had not only failed to deliver possession over a number of years but could not even extend a hope of the delivery thereof in the foreseeable future. Consequently interest was sought to be awarded on the deposited amount till further orders until and unless the HUDA develop the area and deliver possession of the plots. On notice being issued the respondents admitted the factum of the allotment but took up the plea that after development of the site actual possession would be delivered to them. It was however frankly and fairly admitted that the development work could not be started in the Police Lines area so far due to the fact that the police authorities had not delivered possession, and no promised date or time for delivery of the possession in future could even be held out.

The District Forum relying on the precedent of this Commission in Estate Officer, HUDA v. Madan Mohan Gandhi & Others, II (1993) CPJ 1219, which was affirmed in Revision Petition No. 326 of 1993, Chief Administrator, HUDA v. Madan Mohan Gandhi, decided on the 8th of September, 1993, awarded interest to the appellant and others on the deposited amount till further orders until and unless the area is developed and the physical possession is delivered.

MR. R.D. Khurana, the Authorised Representative of the appellant being a lay man was somewhat off the mark in the context in seeking damages or compensation within the settled principles of law. It was sought to be conjecturally argued that had the possession been delivered to the appellant in the year 1990 she might have constructed a house thereon and because of the delay, costs of construction meanwhile had escalated three/ four times and, therefore, a presumed loss of Rs. two lacs has occurred and this may be granted as additional compensation. The submission has only to be noticed and rejected. Firstly it appears that not a title of any evidence on the point of any special damages or the details of the construction costs at the relevant time or the ability of the appellant to build the house or the subsequent escalation of costs was led. Apart from this it is a somewhat conjectural or remote possibility of loss raised on the imaginary presumption of appellant having built a house in 1990 and the alleged enhancement by three/ four times are all amounts which are too remote for compensation on the settled principles of the award of damages. It is beyond cavil that the damages can be awarded only for a direct loss and not for any conjecture or mere possibility of loss which may flow therefrom. Even when pinpointed Mr. Khurana, the Authorised Representative could cite neither principle nor any precedent in which compensation had been awarded on the ground of any projected loss due to the escalation of construction costs. Consequently on the legal and the factual aspect the claim for further enhanced relief must necessarily fail.

FOR the fore-going reasons we are unable to find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. But we still decline to burden the appellant with any costs due to her consumer status. Appeal dismissed. _____________