National Consumer Disputes RedressalWelfare And Service Organisation ... vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 24 December, 2002Equivalent citations: I(2003)CPJ234(NC)ORDERB.K. Taimni, Member1. This complaint has been filed by the Welfare and Service Organization (Regd.) and another against the opposite party, HUDA alleging deficiency in service.2. Facts of the case are that the complainants are running institution/school for the under-privileged with focus on self-reliance for the children of Jhuggi Dwellers, women from these households. They are already running a school for the purpose in a rented accommodation. With a view to get land of their own, the complainant had been registered for getting land in April, 1980. The complainant renewed its request for allotment of land on concessional terms in 1994. They were allotted 1000 sq. yards on 7.3.1995 @ Rs. 67/- per sq. yard in Sector 10 of Housing Board Colony, Faridabad, Haryana. 25% of the demanded amount as per terms of allotment was deposited on 13.3.1995. Possession was offered on 18.12.1995 but when the parties reached this spot to take the possession, the said plot was found already occupied by the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad for the purposes of

developing Public Park. In spite of this fact being within the knowledge of opposite party, yet the complainant was asked to take possession on 19.11.1996. After protracted correspondence and paying visits the complainants were allotted another plot of 1000 sq. yards @ 1,499/- in Sector 17 in lieu of allotment in Sector 10 made earlier. The complainant protested about the enhanced rate but to no avail. Payments as per terms were made under protest. Possession of the said plot was given on 23.6.1999. At that time it was noticed that the actual, measurement of the plot was 1584 sq. yards. Revised rate was communicated for the enhanced area, which was also paid under protest. Representations were made to opposite party to charge old rate and not any new rate, but made no headway. It is in these circumstances that this complaint has been filed before us seeking following a reliefs :(i)   To set aside and quash the demand of the cost of the land measuring 1584 sq. yards allotted in Sector 17, Faridabad at the rate of Rs. 1,499/-per sq. yard.(ii)  To charge at the rate of Rs 67/- per sq. yard for land measuring!584 sq. yards in Sector 17, Faridabad from the complainants at the rate of original allotment.(iii) To direct the respondents to refund the excess amount to the complainants with interest @ 18% p.a. on the respective deposits from the date of payment thereof, paid under protest.(iv) Costs of the present proceedings.(v)   Damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment if any depression, inconvenience and unwanted litigation.(vi) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.3. On a notice being issued opposite party has filed its written version it is stated by them that the complainants are not consumer as not being covered by the definition of the complainant underConsumer Protection Act, this Commission has no competent jurisdiction to deal with a question relating to cost of land in an alternative sector as also not competent to give direction to charge given rate from the complainant. It is their case that the action taken on this case was as per rules and HUDA policy. No consumer dispute arises. Payments have been made and possession handed over to the complainant. Nothing Survives. This complaint is false and frivolous, hence needs to be set aside.We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments.4. It is the case of the opposite party that complainant is not a consumer on two counts--one that it has been filed by two complainants namely Welfare and Service Organisation (WASO) and WASO Public School. The complaint can be filed by one complainant and not two and secondly complainants are not consumer within its definition given in CPA, 1986. It needs to be seen that WASO is the mother/parent organisation and WASO Public School is one of its organisations engaged in imparting education.Section 2(1)(b)defines 'complainant' means a 'consumer'. Word consumer is defined inSection 2(1)(d).'Consumer' means any person.Word 'person' is defined inSection 2(1)(m)'person' includes,(i)	a firm whether registered or not;(ii)	a Hindu Undivided Family;(iii)	a co-operative society;(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under theSocieties Registration Act, 1860(21 of 1860) or not.5. Here is an association of persons, registered in pursuit of a common cause and it is they who had applied for a piece of land for

the welfare of the under-privileged. They fall very much within the definition of consumer. We see no merit in the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party.6. It is not in dispute, as borne by material on record, that this complainant was allotted 1000 sq. yards in Sector 10 of Faridabad @ 67/-per sq. yard, in March, 1995. Consequent to the allotment for events on which this complainant had no control, he was allotted an alternative plot in October, 1998. It is not the opposite party's case that had the original allotment continued, rate would have been revised. When alternative site has been allotted for no fault of the complainant, he cannot be burdened with the liability of enhanced price of the plot for lapses on the part of opposite party who did not know that the allotted plot is not available for handing over the possession to the complainant. We refrain from commenting on this aspect.7. On the point of jurisdiction raised by the opposite party, we have already laid down the principle to be followed by the Public Housing Bodies in such a situation inHUDA v. R.P. Chawla, R.P. Nos. 547 and 548 of 1997.8. We have also held that when on measurement the area is found to be in excess of the area mentioned in the letter of allotment, rate for the additional area shall also be same as charged for the original plot.9. Keeping in view the orders of the Commission passed on the above subject, opposite parties are directed to charge original price of Rs. 67/- per sq. yard for the area allotted to the complainants. Opposite parties shall refund the excess amount charged along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till the date of the payment which shall be made within six weeks of passing of this order failing which rate of interest shall go upto 18% p.a. This complaint is allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the opposite party to the complainant within the period stipulated above.