Haryana

Panchkula

CC/44/2016

DARSHAN GUJRAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CA HUDA AND ANOTHER. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S SATHI.

11 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	44 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	23.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	11.05.2016

Smt.Darshan Gujral, senior citizen of above 78 years, W/o Sh.Diwan Chand Gujral, R/o Manorma Kothi, Civil Lines, Near SBI, Jalandhar-144 001.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       The Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, HUDA Bhawan, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana).

2.       The Estate Officer-1, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-14, Gurgaon (Haryana).                              

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.R.S.Sathi, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Ops already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant-Smt.Darshan Gujral with the averments that she was allotted a plot of 250 sq. yard bearing No.1575 at Sector-4, Urban Estate, Gurgaon vide memo No.8351 dated 29.03.1971. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant neither applied for the possession of the plot nor any possession was offered by the Ops till 2007. On 28.06.2007, the complainant applied for possession of the plot. The OP No.2 sent a letter memo No.14537 dated 27.08.2007 asking the complainant that in view of the new policy, the extension fees amounting to Rs.3,42,925/- upto 2007 were due towards the abovesaid plot. The complainant informed the OP No.1 that she has already deposited Rs.3,42,925/- through demand drafts of different dates and when the possession of the plot was not delivered to her, the demand of extension fee of Rs.3,42,925/- was illegal. It is further alleged that officially the possession of the abovesaid plot was delivered to the complainant on 26.03.2014 by the Junior Engineer, Survey Branch of Op No.1. After taking the possession of the plot un-officially, the complainant constructed the said plot after completing all formalities & deposits and also informed the Op No.1 but the Estate Officer (G) resumed the plot illegally on the ground of non-construction. The complainant preferred an appeal before the Competent Authority which was set aside vide order dated 11.08.2010 by the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon and the plot was restored in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the Estate Officer (G) filed Revision against the order dated 11.08.2010 before the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana which was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2012 on the ground that the construction at the site was completed in the year 2008. Thereafter, the Op No.2 again illegally demanded Rs.3,76,300/- + 12.36% service tax extra as extension fees upto 30.09.2010 vide its letter memo No.311 dated 08.01.2014 for the execution of conveyance deed. After raising the objection by the complainant, the OP No.1 illegally raised a demand of Rs.64,275/- + 12.36% service tax extra as extension fees/non construction fee vide its letter memo No.1324 dated 26.02.2014 for the execution of the conveyance deed. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.72,220/- under protest through demand draft No.993212 dated 14.03.2014 alongwith demand draft No.993087 dated 11.03.2014 of SBI for Rs.20,200/- as compounding fee with the Op No.1. Thereafter, the conveyance deed of the plot was executed and registered on 27.03.2014 by the Estate Officer, HUDA (G) and there was nothing due to pay to the Ops against the abovesaid plot. On 01.04.2015, the Op No.2 issued Occupation Certificate vide its Memo No.ZO002/EO004/UE007/OCCER/0000000492/349 dated 26.03.2015/01.04.2015 in favour of the complainant. The complainant issued legal notice dated 15.06.2015 to the Ops for refund of illegally charged amount but the Op No.2 rejected the claim of the complainant vide its letter memo No.6525 dated 22.09.2015. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops. It is deemed to be served and the Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2016.
3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. Admittedly, plot No.1575 at Sector-4, Gurgaon was allotted to Smt.Darshan Gujral i.e. the complainant on 29.03.1971. As per policy of the HUDA, the allottee was required to complete the construction upto 31.12.2007. The conveyance deed of the plot was executed on 27.03.2014 and the possession was handed over to her on 26.03.2014. The allottee failed to construct the plot and the HUDA issued notices under Sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the HUDA Act. However, the plot was resumed for non-construction by the Estate Officer i.e. OP No.2 on 22.07.2008/22.11.2008. Against the above said resumption order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Administrator, Gurgaon on 05.10.2009 and in that appeal the complainant mentioned that she had to shift to USA for a long time and was not aware regarding the construction policy of the HUDA. On returning, she applied for physical possession of the plot. Upon this, OP No.2 intimated the complainant to deposit extension fee of Rs.3,42,295/- which was deposited on 04.10.2007. However, the possession was not handedover to the complainant but she started the construction and completed the same in the year 2008 and applied for occupation certificate. HUDA informed the complainant that the plot had already been resumed due to non-construction, therefore, she filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon on 14.10.2009. The Administrator HUDA, Gurgaon vide order dated 11.08.2010 set aside the resumption order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA and plot was restored in favour of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Administrator, the OP NO.2 i.e. Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department on 31.01.2011. The revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2012, while passing the order the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department has observed in para no.7 and 8 as under:-

“7.    I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted fact that extension fee for non construction demanded on 28.07.2007 by the Estate Officer was deposited in the year 2007 i.e. on 4.10.2007. Further it is an admitted that physical possession of the plot was asked by the allottee in the year, 2007 which was never given by the Estate Officer. Due to this reason the allottee failed to raise construction on the plot till 31.12.2007 as per policy of HUDA. Further it is an admitted fact that the policy was further relaxed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA on 28.08.2009 to give benefit to those allottees of the plots:-

1. Where building plans got approved and construction was started and completion certificate applied for but not issue due to some deficiencies.
2. Where building plan was got approved, construction started but completion certificate not applied for, since the required level of construction was reached late.
3. Where construction has been completed without getting the building plan approved. Provided they apply for grant of occupation certificate after raising minimum construction till 30.11.2009.

8.   In the case in hand, it is true that the plot was resumed for non construction by the Estate Officer but proceedings against the resumption order were intimated by the allottee when he applied for occupation certificate after raising construction on site. The judgment given by the allottee of CWP No.15100 of 1992 decided on 30.01.1993 is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Estate Officer having accepted the extension fee on 4.10.2007 should have given time to the allottee to undertake construction and action of resumption was not justified. Therefore I find no merits in the Revision Petition filed against the order of Administrator by the Estate Officer. Accordingly I order dismissal of the Revision Petition filed by the Estate Officer.”

6. As per averments made by the complainant in her complaint she admitted that as and when HUDA demanded the extension fee etc. she deposited the same voluntarily without raising any objection. The case of the complainant is not that she was forced to deposit the amount demanded by the HUDA under protest. The case of the complainant is that the Ops be directed to pay Rs.4,90,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, financial loss etc. The complainant has failed to show that what kind of mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, financial loss she has faced because the material available on the file clearly shows she has not raised any objection regarding payment of enhancement amount etc. It is strange that in the legal notice dated 15.06.2015 she has demanded  Rs.1,50,000/-  for mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, financial loss. The stand taken by the complainant is contrary and even she has failed to show that on what basis she has assessed the above compensation. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2 (i) (d) (f) and (g) on the part of the Ops due to which she has faced mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, financial loss.

7.          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

11.05.2016       S.P.ATTRI                  ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER         MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

 

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT