RANI SINGLA vs ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

COMPLAINANT-Rani Singla has come up in appeal against the order dated 23.10.1998 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Panipat, whereby her complaint alleging deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of Plot No. 523- B, has been dismissed as some other person had occupied this plot.

ACCORDING to the complainant, he had allotted a plot No. 150 measuring 6 marks in Sector 11-12, Part-2 but the physical possession of the plot, which according to them was disputed one. Later on alternative Plot No. 523-B, Sector 11, was allotted by HUDA in lieu of the original plot but when the complainant-appellant went to the site to take physical possession of the plot, it transpired that some other person had already occupied the plot. Thereupon, HUDA, expressing their helplessness offered plot No. 523. Plot No. 523, is close to a Nalla and the value thereof is less than that of the plot No. 523-B. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, complainant approached the District Consumer Forum, for claiming a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by way of its difference in the market value of the two plots alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- by way of harassment and mental torture. The learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground, that mistake has taken place due to wrong demarcation of the Junior Engineer of the HUDA.

In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel-Dr. H.D. Gupta, for the appellant- complainant has vehemently contended before us, that there was lot of difference in the market value of Plot No. 523 as compared to the market value of Plot No. 523-B. Therefore, according to him, the complainant was willing to accept the allotment of plot No. 523 instead of 523-B, but he should be suitably compensated for the difference in the market value. On the other hand, learned Counsel for HUDA has reiterated the stand taken by them before the learned District Consumer Forum, Panipat. Now, since, the complainant has agreed to accept the allotment of Plot No. 523, which was also agreed to by the official of HUDA-who appeared before us on the last date of hearing, we order accordingly.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view, that the complainant- appellant has successfully established deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, as negligence of their official marking Junior Engineer was fully proved. Consequently, we allow the appeal by directing HUDA- (i) to allot plot No. 523 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order; (ii) to deliver the vacant physical possession of the aforesaid plot within two months after the letter of allotment is issued and the complainant has cleared any balance towards price of the plot, if any outstanding; (iii) to grant to the complainant at least two years'' time from the date of delivery of possession for construction of the plot, during which period extension fee shall not be charged for non-construction; (iv) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of monetary loss suffered by the complainant towards the market value of the plot, as the area of the plot is 150 yards and difference in the price of two plots shall be approximately Rs. 1,000/- per yard; (v) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for monetary loss and mental agony suffered by her; and (vi) to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. The opposite parties are further directed to comply with the above directions, within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order.

Appeal allowed with costs. _____________