Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/116/2021

Yashpal walia S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Administrator Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    116 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution: 12.04.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 12.04.2022

 

Yashpal Walia s/o Shri Om Parkash Walia, r/o Kothi No.1056, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra-136118.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana, C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula-134114.
2. Executive Engineer, Housing Board Haryana, House No.2191-92, Sector-28, Faridabad-121008.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Shri Ajay Taneja, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.                Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 attached with it, written statement, supportive documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 attached with it, brief facts of the case are, complainant, on June 2014, complainant deposited Rs.2,04,000/- as earnest money Ex.C1 to confirm a contract offered by the OPs via advertisement and period of registration was from 17.2.2014 to 28.03.2014 and by fulfilling all the conditions imposed, he was declared successful allottee vide provisional Registration No.1818/FBD65/T-A/HGB Ex.C2. On 03.03.2015, the OPs issued a final registration No.344 and demanded the payment of Rs.3,80,000/- vide letter Ex.C3 and accordingly, he deposited Rs.3,80,000/- in favour of OPs vide Demand Draft No.007116 dated 13.04.2015 of Haryana Gramin Bank  Ex.C4. However, even after fulfilling all the conditions by the complainant, the OPs did not pay any heed and then, complainant sought the certain information on 26.9.2019 by using Right to Information Act, 2005 Ex.C5, upon which, the OPs sent reply vide letter dated 10.10.2020 Ex.C6 stating that the Drawing/Map of said building is not finalized.  Having no another alternate, he sent legal notices dated 02.9.2020 and 01.10.2020 Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 to the OPs, but the OPs, despite receipt of legal notices, failed to redress his grievance. The work related to such flats had never been executed within the prescribed time limit, even after expiry of 6 years and 2 months of allotment letter, which is an act of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statement, pleading interalia, non-maintainability; bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and territorial jurisdiction of complaint. It is further submitted, the OPs was allotted land measuring 7.5 acre vide Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad vide memo No.12641-43 dated 19.6.2014, Sector-65, Faridabad for construction of multi-storied flats for  defence personnel and according, the possession of the land was handed over by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad vide memo No.1169 dated 24.6.2014 and at that time, there was a Gas Godown building on the said land, which was pointed out to the HUDA Authorities and they replied, it was dismantled and removed and site will be free from all encumbrances. On 15.7.2014, godown was demolished by HUDA and 80% of malba was also removed from the site, with the assurance, rest of malba will be removed from the site within two days. The owner of Bharat Gas Godown went to the Hon’ble High Court against the demolition of gas godown by the HUDA through CWP No.10037 of 2014, vide which, on 14.7.2014, the Hon’ble High Court granted the stay to maintain status-quo by both parties. The Hon’ble Court issued an interim order dated 07.10.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the appropriate authority within two months while maintaining the status qua between the parties. The matter is disposed off on dated 07.10.2015 in CWP 6924 of 2014 by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the writ petitions before the appropriate authority. The office of Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad vide letter No.5347 dated 05.12.2016 had asked the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad for an early settlement of the case. Again Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad vide officer letter No.5384 dated 09.12.2016 to Senior Town Planner, Faridabad, requested for revised Zoning of the group housing site. Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad again requested the Administrator HUDA Faridabad vide office Letter No.1752 dated 18.4.2017 to give the revised possession of the group hosing land measuring 7.5 acres in Sector-65, Faridabad after division of land in 2 pockets i.e. GH-1 and GH-2 and leaving the disputed/stayed land approximately 1000 sq. yds encroached by M/s Bharat Gas Godown. The ATP, Housing Board, Haryana, Panchkula vide office letter No.2355 dated 17.4.2017 addressed to Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad had intimated that the competent authority of Housing Board Haryana had accorded the approval to give the consent regarding revised possession of clear undisputed land in two pockets. The Administrator HUDA, Faridabad vide office letter No.3480 dated 12.5.2017 addressed to Chief Administrator, HUDA (Town Planning Wing), Panchkula, sent Zoning plans of two pockets of GH set as GH site No.1 to GH site No.2 along with the proceedings of Zonal Committee meeting for final decision from competent authority. From 12.5.2017, the case of approval of revised zoning plan was lying with the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. Despite issuing several reminders from the Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad and CTP HBH, Panchkula to Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad and Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for approving the revised zoning plan of the sites of GH-1 and GH-2, Sector-65, Faridabad. Now, the HUDA department had only approved the revised zoning plan vide his letter No.140660 dated 12.7.2018 but not got stay vacated from the Hon’ble High Court. The drawing were submitted to the Estate Officer Faridabad for approval and the matter is still pending with STP office, Faridabad for approval due to set back adjustment as per height and this office is helpless to start the work. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                Both the parties led evidence in order to support their respective versions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well.

6.                There is no dispute, the complainant had applied for allotment of plot with the OPs, vide Application for Registration Ex.C1 and paid the earnest money of Rs.2,04,000/- as demanded by the OPs in their broucher as page No.4 Ex.R1 and thereafter, Rs.3,80,000/- vide Demand Draft Ex.C4, total Rs.5,84,000/- and this fact is also not disputed by the OPs in their written statement and got the provisional Registration No.1818/FBD65/T-A/HGB Ex.C3 from the OPs in this regard. The main grievance of the complainant is that after fulfilling all the formalities with the OPs, the work related to the flats in question had never been executed within the prescribed time limit. In this regard, various petitions were filed before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter is disposed off on 07.10.2015 in CWP-6924-2014 Ex.R2, by the Double Bench and operative part of said order is reproduced as under:-

                   “Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, these petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas, as raised in the writ petitions, before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation”.

7.                Thereafter, the complainant sought certain information on 26.9.2019 by using Right to Information Act, 2005 Ex.C5, upon which, the OPs sent reply vide letter dated 10.10.2020 Ex.C6, stating, the Drawing/Map of said building is not finalized. In their reply, the OPs stated that on 12.05.2017, the case of approval of revised zoning plan was lying with the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and drawing were submitted to the Estate Officer Faridabad for approval and the matter is still pending with STP office, Faridabad for approval due to set back adjustment as per height and this office is helpless to start the work. However, it is pertinent to mention here that after disposal of petitions before the Hon’ble High Court, the OPs were bound to provide the flat to the complainant, after receiving the earnest money, as demanded by them, which was paid by the complainant with OPs, but the OPs failed to do so and delaying the matter on one pretext or another. If HUDA etc. is delaying in giving the approval due to height or any other issue, then it is the interse matter between the HUDA and the OPs, and there is no fault on the part of complainant, who is suffering from a long time, by not completing the work of his flat in time, by the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has completed the terms and conditions of the Allotment letter, by depositing the allotment amount in time, but it is the OPs, who are not fulfilling his part of agreement, by not completing the work of flat of complainant in time and failed to deliver the allotted plot to the complainant, within the reasonable time, which is an act of gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In the present complaint, complainant prayed for refund of Rs.5,84,000/-, deposited by him, with the OPs.

8.                Considering the totality facts and circumstances of the case, uncertain future vis-à-vis the flat in question as well as in the interest of justice, this Commission is of the firm view, in case, the amount of Rs.5,84,000/-, already deposited by the complainant, with the OPs, is ordered to be refunded to the complainant, along with interest @5% p.a., because, as per Housing Policy, the deposit of unsuccessful applicants in the draw of lots will be refunded in full and will pay interest @5.5% p.a. for delay in draw beyond six months, then it will suffice the purpose and end of justice will meet.

9.                Hence, due the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is partly, accepted, directing the OPs, jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.5,84,000/- along with interest @ 5.5% p.a., from the date of last deposit was made by the complainant with the OPs, till its realization. There are no orders as to other costs. Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules, and file be consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Dated: 12.04.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.