HUDA told to pay Rs 10,000

PANCHKULA, AUG 16: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed HUDA to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to a complainant for mental...

PANCHKULA, AUG 16: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed HUDA to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to a complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to her for delaying possession of a residential plot and further pay a sum of Rs 1,000 on account of the cost of proceedings.

Apart from this, HUDA has also been directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant, including the enhancement and interest if charged, with interest-compensation at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till actual realisation. The orders were passed by the Forum president, R.C.Taneja.

The complainant, Kala Sharma, a resident of Sector 4, Panchkula, was allotted one residential site in Sonepat for a tentative price of Rs 1,60,303 which was fully remitted by the complainant besides Rs 25,771.30 on account of the additional amount demanded by HUDA. But despite deposit of the entire amount, HUDA have not so far offered the possession of the site for want of adequate development works.

The Court observed that HUDA was required to complete the development works in the area and offer the possession of the plot to the complainant within a reasonable period, despite the fact that no time limit was prescribed in the allotment letter for this purpose.

Delhi firm fined for harassment
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed M.N. Dastoor amp; Company, Computer Division, a Delhi-based firm, to pay a complainant a sum of Rs 1,000 for the mental agony and harassment caused to him by the company and an additional sum of Rs 250 as cost of the proceedings. The orders were passed by Forum president R.C. Taneja and member B.S. Badhran.

The complainant, Joginder Singh, a resident of Panchkula, had purchased 400 units under the UTI Master Growth Scheme in the name of his minor son. After his attained maturity, he sent these unit certificates to the opposite party for issuing new certificates in the single name of his son on 17.8.1996. But to his utter surprise, the opposite party demanded a quot;death certificatequot;.

The complainant wrote another letter, but in reply got a letter, with a form to be filled and sent back, which was accordingly done. But despite all this, Joginder Singh did not get back the certificates. The Court observed that by not issuing the amended certificates in time, the opposite party had indulged in deficient services and as such the plea of the complainant was accepted.