Haryana

StateCommission

A/920/2019

HSVP - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SURINDER CHAUDHARY

13 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.920 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 18.10.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 13.01.2020

 

 

1.      Estate Officer, HSVP, Sector 9, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

 

2.      Chief Administrator, HSVP, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

…..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

Anil Kumar son of Sh. Chand Ram, C/o Arvind Kumar, resident of Mata Gate, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

..…Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

 

 

                                                        

Present:-    Shri Surinder Chaudhary, counsel for the appellants.

                    

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The Estate Officer, Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran (hereinafter referred to as ‘HSVP’), Bahadurgarh and the Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula who were the opposite parties in the complaint titled ‘Anil Kumar Versus Estate Officer, HUDA and Another’ have filed the instant appeal against the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar whereby the complaint preferred by Anil Kumar against the opposite parties was disposed of by declaring the offer of possession (Exhibit P-2) with demand of interest as wrong and illegal and accordingly set aside.  The opposite parties were also directed to take the due installments from the complainant w.e.f. 30.08.2015 to 30.08.2017 without any interest thereupon and to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, etc suffered by him and also to pay Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant for deficiency in service on their part.

2.      According to the complainant, he was allotted Plot No.132 in Sector 9, Jhajjar by the opposite parties.  The tentative price of the plot was Rs.7,65,437/-, out of which the complainant had paid Rs.5,01,270/-.  Despite the same, opposite party No.2 sent a memo dated 22.01.2015 to the complainant offering possession and requiring him to pay the due installments from 26.09.2015 to 26.09.2017 alongwith interest despite the fact that the opposite parties did not provide the basic amenities i.e. water supply, approach road, sewerage, electrification, etc. Hence, the complainant was unable to take the possession of the plot in question.  In the memo in question, the mentioning of interest upon due installments and offer of possession without providing basic amenities was against the terms and conditions of allotment letter and as such, there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant accordingly sought issuance of directions to the opposite parties to take due installments without any interest and to pay compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties, while filing the written version admitted the factum of deposit of total amount of Rs.5,01,270/- by the complainant and issuance of memo dated 22.01.2015 to the complainant for taking possession of plot in question and directing him to deposit the due installments with interest.  It was also pleaded that the possession of the plot would be offered only after completion of basic amenities.  It was further stated that all the basic facilities as per norms of HUDA policy as well as allotment letter had been provided and accordingly offer of possession made to the complainant.  The demand of the opposite parties was legal and as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.  As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4.      In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit (Exhibit P-1) and documents (Exhibits P-2 to P-11) as well as Local Commission Report (Exhibit P12) whereas opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit (Exhibit R-1) and documents (Exhibits R-2 to R-3).

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the case file and perusing the documents, learned District Forum passed the impugned order.

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that original allotment letter dated 23.08.2011 was issued to one Shish Ram and lateron reallotted to the complainant.  As per condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the site was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter and on completion of the development works in the area.  As such, the opposite parties were required to offer the possession only after completion of the developmental work.  The opposite parties did not provide the basic amenities.  At the same time, the opposite parties had claimed that the offer of possession was being made as the basic amenities stood provided.  The Local Commission, who was appointed to know the actual and factual possession at the spot mentioned in his report dated 29.07.2015 (Exhibit P-12) that at the site in question, there was no numbering of plots and the manholes of sewerage were found open and even sewerage system was not in order.  There was neither connectivity of pipeline of drinking water with water tank nor the same had yet started.  Even the park had not been developed by the authorities.  There was also no community centre or citizen club.  Accordingly, it was concluded that the opposite parties had failed to offer the possession to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.  As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, who issued offer of possession letter to the complainant and also raising interest on further installments w.e.f. 30.08.2015 to 30.08.2017 from the complainant, which act was illegal, arbitrary, wrong and unjustified.  Thus the complainant had become entitled for suitable compensation in the matter and accordingly, learned District Forum set aside the letter of offer of possession with demand of interest as wrong and illegal.  The complainant was also held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment etc and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. 

7.      In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum.  The appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore dismissed.

            

 

Announced 13.01.2020

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K