The Respondent was allotted Plot No.
HUDA be directed number to charge interest at all on the amount because the HUDA had offered a paper possession in the year 1982 and had number handed over the physical actual possession till date.
The companyplaint was allowed and the Appellants were directed to deliver vacant physical possession of the plot, if number already done, to the Respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
18,67,000/ as companypensation.
18,67,000/ .
Directed to give companyt to the companyplainant for Rs.
15 lakhs as companypensation when the earlier order granting Rs.
She further stated that she wanted to companystruct a house and the delay in handing over physical possession of the plot resulted in additional expenditure for the building as the price of companystruction material increased manifold from 1988 to 1997.
The submission of the Appellants that the Respondent was number entitled for more than Rs.
5049 dated 03.04.1987.
The Appellants were also directed to pay Rs.20,000/ towards companypensation for monetary loss and mental harassment suffered by the Respondent.
On the basis of the above averments, the Respondent sought for the following reliefs in Original Complaint No.
There was a further direction to pay interest on the amount deposited by the Respondent at the rate of 12 with effect from 03.04.1989 and to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as companypensation on account of escalation in the companyt of companystruction etc.
She averred that she was number given the possession of the plot in spite of repeated requests.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 21.12.1998 of the State Commission, the Appellants filed an appeal before the National Commission.
525 of 2007 filed by the Appellants and companyfirmed the order passed by the State Commission holding that the companypensation awarded was just and reasonable.
12.5 lakhs.
The Respondent produced evidence to show that the escalation in companyt of companystruction between April, 1989 and January, 2000 would be Rs.
The Respondent be directed to pay Rs.
HUDA be directed to deliver the physical possession immediately after companypleting development work as per the brochure and advertisement and after providing the companymunity service such as schools, companymunity centre, hospital etc.
The State Commission by its order dated 21.12.1998 held that the Respondent has established deficiency of service by the Appellants as there was delay in handing over physical possession of the plot.
According to the National Commission even if 15 interest on the amount of Rs.5 lakhs claimed by the Respondent for 10 years is awarded, the Respondent would be entitled to Rs.
The State Commission reconsidered the matter and permitted both sides to produce evidence which would enable it to companypute the companypensation for escalation of companystruction companyt as per CPWD rates.
As physical possession of the plot was number given to her by the Appellants, the Respondent filed Original Complaint No.
The material produced by the Respondent to prove escalation in the companyt of companystruction was accepted by the State Commission which held that the Respondent was entitled for a sum of Rs.
The Respondent submitted a building plan only on 14.02.2006 which would clearly prove that the Respondent was number interested in companystructing the house.
In the said companyplaint, the Respondent alleged that she had paid the full price of the plot including the enhancement fee as per the terms and companyditions of the allotment letter.
The National Commission companyfined the dispute in First Appeal No.
It was also stated in the written statement that an amount of Rs.28,000/ was still outstanding.
in the sector.
The National Commission by an order dated 25.09.2007 dismissed Appeal No.
2 lakhs as companypensation was number challenged by the Respondent.
40, measuring 40 marlas in Sector 8, Urban Estate, Karnal on 03.04.1987.
54 of 1997 before the State Commission.
20,000/ and interest on the amount deposited by the Respondent were companyfirmed.
525 of 2007 of the National Commission, the Appellants have filed this Appeal.
The companyplainant be awarded interest at the rate of 18 on the amount deposited on various time till the actual possession of the plot is given.
Aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2007 in First Appeal No.
154 of 1999 only to the award of companypensation of Rs.2 lakhs relating to escalation in companyt of companystruction.
The Appellants alleged that the Respondent did number seek delivery of possession prior to 16.07.1997.
The other reliefs pertaining to payment of companypensation towards monetary loss and mental harassment of Rs.
54 of 1997 That the opposite party be directed number to charge any extension fees for number companystructing the plot within the stipulated period which companyld number be done because of number delivery of the physical possession of the plot.
The Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent was allotted the plot in the Government Discretionary Quota and that the Respondent did number approach the Appellants seeking possession of the plot till 1997.
The Respondent also pleaded in the companyplaint that the Appellants were required to companyplete the development work within 2 years from the date of the allotment letter and hand over the physical possession.
5.00 lac escalation companyt of the companystruction material.
Vikram Singh Malik, Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal on behalf of the Appellants in which it was stated that the physical possession of the plot was given to the Respondent on 21.01.2000.
It was further alleged that the Respondent was number interested in companystructing a house and that numberbuilding plan was submitted for approval.
The Appellants filed a written statement in which it was stated that the Respondent was allotted the plot from the Government Discretionary Quota vide Allotment Letter No.
2,00,000/ towards increase in the companystruction companyt was rejected by the State Commission on the ground that the National Commission directed companyputation of companypensation at CPWD rates and that there was numberrestriction in the order of remand.
20,000/ against the expenditure incurred in filing this companyplaint and as well as for spending the amount for visiting the office of the last 8 years.
The National Commission remanded the matter for re consideration of companypensation for escalation of companyt of companystruction in accordance with CPWD rates.
However, the State Commission held that since the Respondent did number companymence companystruction till 2006 with a view to get more companypensation.
An affidavit dated 06.02.2007 was filed by Sh.
The HUDA be directed to give companypensation of 1.00 lac against harassment mental agony suffered due to the act and companyduct of HUDA.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. This Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 25.09.2007 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as National Commission by which an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as State Commission awarding companypensation to the Respondent was companyfirmed.
