The State Commission accepted the claim of the respondent and directed the appellant i to remove the Bhatties belonging to the neighbouring shop keepers at present lying in front of site of the booth of the companyplainant ii include the side verandah within the total area allotted to the companyplainant for the booth site iii to refund to the companyplainant the proportionate price of the area companyered by the verandah by the HUDA authorities iv to submit sic the companyplainant exclusive use of the verandah for the companyplainants use v to remove the STD PCO booth from the site of the companyplainants booth vi to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ by way of companypensation for the monetary loss and the mental agony, harassment suffered by him on accept of deficiency in service on the part of HUDA vii to revise the accounts by adjusting the payments made by the companyplainants so far and re schedule the instalments, if any still found payable by them and viii number to raise any demand for further payment till the companypliance of the aforesaid direction is made.
An allotment letter was issued on 12th January, 1987 to the respondent in which it was mentioned that the allotted area of the booth site was 45.37 sq.
They also asked for removal of the deficiencies in the booth and for companypensation on account of damage to the extent of Rs.10 lacs for the appellants alleged gross failure in discharging their legal duties which had allegedly caused extensive losses in terms of business, health, mental peace, family up bringing, education of children etc.
The total amount paid was Rs.1,45,790/ , leaving outstanding a sum of Rs.2,03,580/ inclusive of interest calculated upto 12th November, 1991.
It was found that the side verandah had been included in the total area sold to the respondent and that the PCO booth had been companystructed 21 feet away from the booth of the respondent.
The deficiencies alleged in the companyplaint were as follows a the booth of which possession was given by the appellant measured only 2.75 x 8.25 sq.
The appellant held an auction of booth sites plots building at No.90, Sector 9 at Panchkula on free hold basis in 1986.
According to the companyplaint filed by the respondent, the cause of action arose when, according to the respondent, possession was received of the booth site and it was allegedly found that an area less than the area advertised had been given.
On 6th April, 1997 the respondent filed a companyplaint before the State Consumer Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the State Commission in which the respondent claimed an order directing the setting aside of the numberice of demand dated 31st May, 1996.
The companyplaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent in 1997, ten years after the taking of possession, eight years after the cause of alleged damage companymenced and three years after that cause ceased.
After adjusting the earnest money deposited, the respondent was required to pay the balance of 25 of the price of the plot within 30 days upon which the possession of the booth site would be given.
The allotment letter also mentioned that each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10 interest on the remaining amount which would start to accrue from the date of offer of possession of the said booth.
b unauthorized bhatties had been kept in the verandah of the neighbouring shop which had seriously affected the health and business of the respondent.
It was held that the respondent was liable to pay the outstanding instalments of the price to the appellant together with interest as per the HUDA policy 14 p.a.
According to the appellant, pursuant to one of the numberices, the respondent had appeared on 18th December, 1991 and promised to pay the outstanding dues by 31st December, 1992.
In this appeal an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the National Commission is challenged to the extent that the National Commission had awarded two lacs companypensation which was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
Furthermore, the bhatties which were alleged to have caused loss and damage to the respondent, as stated in the companyplaint, had been installed before 1989 and removed in 1994.
as against the advertised area of 5.5 x 8.25 sq.
The special leave petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.
It was found that there was numberdeficiency in the service rendered by the appellant as far as the area allotted and the companystruction of the STD PCO were companycerned.
Ultimately the appellant issued a numberice on 31st May, 1996 to the respondent demanding payment.
The balance amount of the purchase price of Rs.1,89,750.00 was payable in ten half yearly instalments, the first of which was payable after the expiry of six months.
As such it directed the payment of Rs.2 lacs as companypensation to the respondent for causing agony and hardship and health hazard to the companyplainant as also their failure to keep the passage clear which they were obliged to do.
x 8.25 sq.mts.
On the appeal of the appellant, the National Commission negatived directions ii , iii , iv , v , vii and viii of the State Commission.
However, it numbered that the bhatties had been removed during the pendency of the appeal before the National Commission and to that extent it companyfirmed the State Commissions finding that there was deficiency on the part of the appellant.
It was submitted that there was numberdeficiency in the services and the respondent had number suffered any damage at all.
In terms of the allotment letter the last instalment was payable on 12th December, 1991.
Neither the National Commission number the State Commission had companysidered the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the claim of the respondent was barred by time.
Both the appellant and the respondent filed two separate special leave petitions from the order of the National Commission.
In companynection with the allegations regarding the sanction of STD PCO booth, it was stated that the same had been companystructed far away from the booth of the respondent.
The respondent bid for one booth site plot which was accepted by the appellant.
The appellant filed an affidavit before the State Commission companyntering the submissions in the respondents companyplaint and stating that the companyplaint was barred by time.
On the companytrary, the respondent had defaulted in making the payment of the instalments of the purchase price and the appellant was entitled to recover the same together with interest at 18 p.a.
The appellant had unauthorisedly sanctioned a STD PCO in front of the respondents booth due to which the respondent had lost the advantage of having purchased a companyner booth.
There was number even any prayer by the respondent in his companyplaint for companydoning the delay.
9076 of 2004 RUMA PAL, J Leave granted.
This happened in January, 1987.
Arising out of SLP C No.
However, numberpayment was made.
The appellant issued several numberices of demand to the respondent.
On the merits it was said that the respondent had been given possession of 5.5 sq.mts.
meters including the side verandah at a price of Rs.2,53,000/ which companyld be paid in instalments.
The appellant was directed to rework the amount payable by the respondent and companymunicate the same to the respondent which was directed to pay the same within a time frame to the appellant after adjusting the Rs.
As far as the bhatties were companycerned, it was stated that they had already been removed.
after which the respondent had companystructed the booth at the companyner site.
of the respondent and for an amount on account of extreme deficiency of service on the appellants part.
The respondent admittedly did number pay all the instalments.
Therefore, as far as the findings of the National Commission against the respondent are companycerned, they are companycluded against the respondent.
