Haryana

StateCommission

A/35/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BABLI - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.TAUNQUE

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No. 35 of 2015

Date of Institution:07/13.01.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 11.08.2016

 

1.      The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Estate Officer, HUDA, Bhiwani.

2.      The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bhiwani.

3.      Junior Engineer, Office of HUDA, Bhiwani.

…..Appellants

Versus

Smt. Babli W/o Shri Raj Kumar, R/o Village Haluwas, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani.

…..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Taunque, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   None for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by complainant that he was re-allotted plot No.2574 vide letter No.3578 dated 16.06.2009 measuring 135 sq. meter when she started construction it was found that the area of the plot was 130 sq. meter.  In this way, O.Ps. charged price of 05 sq. meter amounting to Rs.45,000/- and they directed to refund the same.

2.      It was alleged by O.Ps. that possession of the plot was handed over to real allottee on 02.04.2009 and he admitted the area as 135 sq. meters. If previous allottee handed over less area to the complainant it was not their fault.  She purchased this plot vide sale deed No.3442 dated 11.08.2009. At the time of re-allotment she did not raise any objection about less area.  So she was not entitled for any compensation.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.10.2014 and directed as under:-

“1      to refund to cost of less area of 5 sq. meters at the prevailing market rate alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its final realization.

2.      to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, financial losses and deprivation of use the house.

3.      to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of only counsel for the appellants were heard because nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.

6.      As per evidence available on the file, it is clear that initially this plot was allotted to Somdev S/o Kutu Ram vide letter dated 22.09.2009, as mentioned in Annexure-8.  Deed of conveyance Annexure-13 was also executed to this effect. Annexure-3 shows that possession of plot measuring 135 sq. meters was handed over to him. It shows that previous owner took possession  of the plot measuring 135 sq. yards.  Lateron he sold this plot to complainant vide sale deed dated 11.08.2009 Annexure-12.  In that sale deed also the area is mentioned as 135 sq. meter.  It was admitted in the sale deed that the possession of the plot measuring 135 sq. meter has been obtained. Complainant never raised objection at any stage that area was not 135 sq. meters.  If area was less, then, she should have raised objection when sale Deed Annexure 12 was executed in her favour.  It is well settled proposition of law that purchaser be aware. If previous owner has delivered possession of less area appellants/O.Ps. cannot be held responsible for the same.  Instead of seeking refund from O.Ps., she should have asked refund from the previous owner because appellants-O.Ps. handed over complete plot to previous owner.  Learned District forum failed to take into consideration this aspect.  But any how learned counsel for the appellants has produced latest measurement of the plot before this commission. As per report, area of the plot is 132.66 sq. meter.  In the interest of justice, the appellants-O.Ps. are be directed to refund the price of less area at the rate at which it was allotted to previous allottee i.e. Somdev, but, O.Ps. cannot be penalized with compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses because there was no fault on their part.  In this way impugned order dated 16.10.2014 is modified to the effect that the appellants shall refund the amount of less area at the rate at which it was allotted to previous allottee i.e. Somdev, but, O.Ps. are not be penalized with compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses because there was no fault on their part. With this modification, appeal is disposed of.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules. 

 

August 11th, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                              Judicial Member                                            Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.