Possession Of Plot Offered Twice, HUDA Not Liable For Delay Caused Due To Road Shifting, Subsequent Plan Approval: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench of Justice AP Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) held that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) was not liable for delay in delivering possession of an allotted plot, as it had offered the same twice, and the initial delay was caused due to shifting of a road and approval of a revised plan. Brief Facts: The Complainant booked a plot developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA”). Allegedly, despite paying the necessary instalments, HUDA failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot. The Complainant also sent a legal notice to HUDA. However, it still failed to grant the possession. The Complainant could not start the intended construction on his plot due to HUDA's failure to deliver the physical possession. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (“District Commission”). The District Commission held that HUDA was deficient in service for failing to deliver possession. It allowed the complaint and directed HUDA to deliver possession and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for escalation in construction costs, Rs. 5,000/- for harassment, Rs. 2,000/- for litigation expenses, and Rs. 1,600/- per month as rent from October 2001 until actual possession was granted to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Commission, HUDA filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”). The State Commission overturned the District Commission's decision and held that the physical possession of the plot was already offered to the Complainant. Therefore, there was no delay or deficiency on HUDA's part. Aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission, the Complainant filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“NCDRC”). Observations by the NCDRC: The NCDRC observed that the delay on HUDA's part arose due to the shifting of a road and the subsequent approval of a revised plan. However, the District Commission overlooked this and assumed a default on HUDA's part. The NCDRC referred to the report of the junior engineer, which stated that the Complainant was offered possession as per the approved demarcation plan. However, the Complainant refused to accept the possession. This was followed by a formal letter from the estate officer of HUDA, which requested the Complainant to take possession either personally or through an authorized representative. The Complainant responded to this letter alleging that HUDA's communication was an attempt to create false evidence to escape liability. However, he did not substantiate this allegation or challenge the veracity of the officials' report. Therefore, the NCDRC held that the District Commission erroneously held that HUDA failed to offer possession while overlooking the documentary evidence that clearly demonstrated the contrary. While there may have been initial delays due to administrative reasons, the NCDRC held that the subsequent offer of possession in 2003 negates any finding of deficiency in service at that stage. On the other hand, the NCDRC also held that the State Commission's dismissal of the entire complaint was equally unjust. The NCDRC held that the District Commission wrongfully granted Rs. 3,00,000/- for escalation in material and labour charges as HUDA offered possession during the pendency of the complaint. It was the Complainant who rejected it. The award of Rs. 1,600/- per month from October 2001 as rent charges was also held to be erroneous, as the possession had already been offered in 2003. Therefore, the NCDRC partly allowed the revision petition. Consequently, the NCDRC modified the order of the District Commission by retaining only the direction for delivery of possession while quashing the awards of compensation, rent, and interest. The NCDRC directed HUDA to hand over physical possession of the plot to the Complainant within three months. Case Title: Shamsher Singh Malik vs Huda Case Number: NC/RP/3154/2012 Advocate for the Petitioner: Madhurendra Kumar Advocate for the Respondent: Vivek Gupta Click here to download Order/Judgement

Possession Of Plot Offered Twice, HUDA Not Liable For Delay Caused Due To Road Shifting, Subsequent Plan Approval: NCDRC

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Possession Of Plot Offered Twice, HUDA Not Liable For Delay Caused Due To Road Shifting, Subsequent Plan Approval: NCDRC

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers