Possession Offered Twice, Delay Due to Road Shifting and Plan Approval—HUDA Not Liable, Rules NCDRC
Pranav B Prem
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has held that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) is not liable for delay in delivery of physical possession of a residential plot where possession was offered twice and the initial delay occurred due to realignment of a road and subsequent approval of a revised demarcation plan. The Commission noted that where possession is duly offered and documentary evidence supports the same, the developer cannot be held deficient in service solely due to administrative delays.
Background
The Complainant, Shamsher Singh Malik, had booked a plot under HUDA’s scheme in Sector-7, Gohana, Haryana. Despite having paid the required installments, the Complainant alleged that HUDA failed to deliver physical possession of the allotted plot. Aggrieved, he served a legal notice dated 15.01.2003 and thereafter filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat, stating that he was deprived of possession which hindered his construction plans and caused him financial and mental hardship.
The District Commission found HUDA deficient in service and directed it to deliver possession of the plot and pay the following amounts:
₹3,00,000 for escalation in construction costs,
₹5,000 for harassment,
₹2,000 for litigation expenses, and
₹1,600 per month as rent from October 2001 until actual possession was granted.
HUDA challenged the decision before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, which reversed the District Commission's order, holding that possession had already been offered and that there was no deficiency in service. The Complainant then filed a revision petition before the NCDRC.
Observations by the NCDRC
The NCDRC thoroughly examined the documentary record and noted that HUDA had indeed offered possession of the plot twice. The first offer was backed by a possession certificate issued on 28.01.2002, and the second offer was made during the pendency of the complaint. The report of the Junior Engineer dated 22.09.2003 recorded that the Complainant was offered possession at the site on 25.08.2003 in the presence of senior officials, but he had refused to accept it. This was further reiterated in HUDA’s formal communication dated 29.09.2003, which invited the Complainant to take possession either personally or through an authorised representative.
The Complainant responded to this letter on 13.10.2003 by alleging that HUDA’s communication was fabricated to escape liability. However, he failed to produce any evidence to disprove the contents of the engineer’s report or the possession certificate. The Commission noted that the Complainant's response was vague and contained unsubstantiated allegations.
It held: “We have not been able to gather as to how the contents of the letter dated 29.09.2003 are false… Thus, it is established on record that possession had been offered once again on 25.08.2003 and thereafter the petitioner/complainant was once more called upon to take physical possession.”
The NCDRC found that the District Commission had overlooked this critical evidence while assuming default on HUDA’s part. It acknowledged that while there may have been some initial delay due to road shifting and revised planning, this did not amount to deficiency in service once possession was duly offered.
However, the Commission also noted that the State Commission had erred in dismissing the entire complaint. Since the Complainant had made substantial payments, he remained entitled to possession of the plot.
On Compensation and Rent
The NCDRC held that the District Commission’s award of ₹3,00,000 for escalation in construction material and labour charges was unjustified, as possession was offered in 2003 during the pendency of the complaint. Likewise, the direction to pay ₹1,600 per month from October 2001 as rent was also held to be erroneous, as it ignored the fact that the offer of possession had already been made. It also set aside the award of interest at 12% per annum from the date of allotment to the date of possession, observing that the direction was based on a mistaken assumption of continuous delay.
Verdict
Accordingly, the NCDRC partly allowed the revision petition. It set aside the State Commission’s decision dismissing the complaint and modified the District Commission’s order by retaining only the direction for delivery of physical possession. The awards of compensation, rent, and interest were quashed. The Commission directed that HUDA shall deliver physical possession of the plot to the Complainant within three months, and that the Complainant shall clear any dues as per the scheme and terms of allotment.
Appearance
For the Petitioner: Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate
Cause Title: Shamsher Singh Malik V. HUDA
Case No: NC/RP/3154/2012
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Sahi [President], Hon'ble Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya [Member]
[Read/Download order]
