Haryana

Panchkula

CC/389/2021

PURSHOTAM KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR,HSVP. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIRUDH KUSH.

07 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	389 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	20.09.2021
Date of Decision	:	07.03.2023

 

 

Purshotam Kumar, son of Sh. Munsi Ram, resident of house no.836, Sector-14, Sonipat.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Chief Administrator, HSVP, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.     Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Anirudh Kush, Advocate, for complainant. 

                        Sh. Rajinder Singla, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts, as alleged, in the present complaint, are that the Ops had floated scheme for allotment of residential plot in newly carved out Sector-23, Sonipat and on the assurance of the OPs, the complainant had applied for the allotment of a plot. The complainant had deposited earnest money amounting to Rs.24,840/- as 10% of the tentative cost of the plot of Rs.2,48,400/-. A plot no.1616, Sector-23, Sonipat was allotted in favour of the complainant vide allotment letter memo no.6723 dated 09.11.1992. The complainant, in compliance with the terms and conditions of allotment letter, paid 15% amount i.e. Rs.37,260/- of the tentative price within the stipulated period, so, as to make it 25% i.e. Rs.62,100/-. It is stated that as per Clause of 7 of the allotment letter, the Ops had to offer the possession of plot after completion of developments works in the area. The OPs failed to carry out the necessary developments in the area for a long period. It is stated that the OP offered the possession of the aforesaid plot vide their letter no.12005 dated 27.05.1998 without completing developments works. Despite writing number of letters and visiting the OP’s office many times by the complainant, the physical possession was not offered to him as the HSVP failed to complete the developmental works and ultimately, the complainant being aggrieved from unfair trade practice and negligent attitudes of the OPs, filed a consumer complaint no.211 dated 14.08.2000, seeking the relief of interest compensation. The DCFRF, Panchkula vide order dated 13.12.2000 decided the complaint and directed the OPs to refund the deposited amount along with interest beyond the relief prayed in complaint. Thereafter, the Ops filed an appeal against the order dated 13.12.2000 before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana. However the Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Ops vide order dated 11.07.2006. It is stated that the complainant never received notice of above said appeal. It is stated that the OPs had neither accepted the surrender of plot nor complied with the order dated 13.12.2000 passed by DCDRF, Panchkula & further not accepted the request of the complainant to handover the physical possession of the plot. The Ops, on the basis of legal advice, filed the revision petition before the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi. In the meantime, on 24.05.2013, complainant exercised his statutory right under Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and revoked the implied offer of surrender by writing a letter to Chief Administrator, HUDA Panchkula because it had not been accepted even after 6 years, 10 months of the Hon’ble SDCRC’s order. No communication was received from HSVP allowing the complainant to make the payment of outstanding dues with respect to the plot. As the implied offer of surrender was revoked on 24.05.2013, he submitted a representation in the office of Chief Administrator Legal Cell HSVP Panchkula on 05.10.2014 requesting to grant him permission to deposit balance amount due upto 31.12.2014 Rs.12,41,735/-(i.e. delayed installments alongwith interest and extension  fees) outstanding amount as per HUDA Policy with respect to allotted plot no.1616, Sector-23, Sonipat. The complainant, in furtherance of revocation of the implied offer of surrender dated 24.05.2013, even submitted a cheque no.538431 dated 08.10.2014 of Rs.12,50,000/-against the allotment price of Rs.2,48,400/- vide letter dated 08.01.2015. The cheque dated 08.10.2014 of Rs.12,50,000/- was not accepted by HSVP and thereafter, complainant filed revision petition in the office of Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Town and Country Planning Department Chandigarh on 20.09.2016 with a prayer to issue direction to HSVP to allow him to deposit the due amount qua the plot allotted to him as the plot was  never surrendered by him. It is further stated that the PSTCP, without going into the records and without applying its judicious mind, wrongly held that the complainant had requested for the refund of the deposited amount whereas the complainant had sought only interest compensation. It is alleged that ADA for the HSVP mis-stated that the complainant filed consumer complaint for the refund of the deposited amount whereas the complainant had sought interest compensation vide complaint no.211/ 2000. It is stated that the complainant had given his willingness to forgoes the relief awarded by DCDRF, Panchkula vide order dated 14.12.2000 and requested to accept all the outstanding amount against the plot in question even with updated price and interest. On the date of hearing of revision petition by PSTCP, the complainant did not challenge the order of DCDRF dated 13.12.2000, which had directed HSVP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.62,100/- along with interest @10%. It is stated that the said order of DCDRF became an implied offer of surrender. The HSVP did not accept this implied offer of surrender of plot and filed first appeal bearing number 293 of 2001 before the Hon’ble SCDRC which was dismissed on 11.07.2006. The HSVP did not file any revision petition before the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi. Thereafter, the effect of the Hon’ble SDCRC order dated 11.07.2006 was that the implied offer of surrender of plot as per the DCDRF order continued but the same was not accepted by the OPs/HSVP till 18.07.2019. Thereafter, he filed an application U/s 30(2) of HSVP Act, 1997 before the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh but the same was ordered to be filed and complaint was advised to seek appropriate remedy before forum vide order dated 02.04.2021. The OPs/ HSVP in many cases has restored the plots/commercial shops to the similar situated allottees, even to those who had lost their cases from Hon’ble Court, Hon’ble State Commission, Hon’ble National Commission and even the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the case of the complainant should have been considered by the OPs being state authority under Article 13 of Constitution of India as they cannot discriminate between similar situated persons. Due to the act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; concealed the true material facts; no cause of action; estoppel; no locus-standi; the complainant has not come with clean hands; time barred and complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer. It is stated that the plot no.1616, Sector-23, Sonipat  was allotted in the name of complainant on free hold basis for tentative price of Rs.2,48,400/- vide allotment letter dated 04.11.1992. The allotment was made in favour of the complainant on free hold basis subject to terms & conditions mentioned in the aforesaid allotment letter and subject to the provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 and the rules & regulations applicable there under and as amended from time to time. The complainant deposited only 25% amount against total sale price i.e. 10% amount along with his application and 15% amount vide receipt no. 206987 dated 09.12.1992 but the complainant failed to deposit balance 75% amount in installments and therefore finding no other alternative, the OPs issued show cause notice under Section17(1) of HUDA Act, 1977 vide memo no.11839 dated 24.11.1995 sent through Regd. AD, vide which, the complainant was asked to remit an amount of Rs.1,12,144/- upto 30.04.1995(subject to audit) and further to show cause why a penalty of Rs.11,214/-on the amount be not imposed upon him, but the complainant neither replied the said letter nor appeared in person. Thereafter, notice for hearing under Section 17(2) of HUDA Act, 1977 was issued to complainant vide memo no.2520 dated 06.05.1996 vide which he was asked to appear on 24.05.1996 in the office of OP No.2 but he failed to appear before OPs. Thereafter, notice for payment of additional price of plot no.1616, Sector-23, Sonipat was issued to complainant vide memo no.9051 dated 12.05.1998 whereby the complainant was requested to deposit an amount of Rs.36,992.30/- which was worked out by OPs @ Rs.103.10 per sq.yard and in addition to above, he was also informed about outstanding dues of Rs.2,63,663/- on account of installments but neither he deposited additional price nor paid the amount of installments.  The possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant vide memo no.12005 dated 27.05.1998 but he did not come forward to take physical possession of plot. The complainant submitted application dated 16.01.1999 with Ops with the request for acceptance of surrender of plot and to refund of entire amount along with 18% interest with one month in respect of plot in question. Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no.211 of 2000 in the DCDRF, Panchkula  on the same grounds as  taken in the present complaint, which was allowed by Forum vide order dated 13.12.2000 in favour of the complainant and the first appeal filed by Ops against the order dated 13.12.2000 before the Hon’ble SCDRC, UT, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2006 and the order dated 13.12.2000 passed by this Hon’ble Commission was never challenged by the complainant before any Forum/Commission and thus, the same has attained finality and now, the complainant has no  legal right to agitate the same issue again & again by twisting the facts of the present  matter. During pendency of aforesaid complaint, show cause notice under Sections 17(1) & 17(2) of HUDA Act, 1977 was issued to the complainant vide memo no.7926 dt. 28.09.2000 vide which he was required to remit Rs.4,05,141/- on account of installment plus interest upto 09.10.2000 and Rs.51,980/- on account of enhanced compensation plus interest upto 09.10.2000 and further called upon to show cause within a period of 30 days why a penalty of Rs.45,712/- should not be imposed upon him, but the complainant neither appeared for personal hearing on 16.10.2000 nor deposited the outstanding amount against the plot in question.  The complainant also filed Revision Petition U/s 17(8)/30 of HUDA Act,1977 before the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Town & Country Planning, Department Chandigarh and the said revision petition of complainant was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2018. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the OPs has already refunded an amount of Rs.2,28,390/- to him vide cheque no.001003 dated 17.07.2019 and nothing is due by the Ops towards the complainant. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-15 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Annexure R-A along with Annexure R-1 to R-10 and closed the evidence.

                On 21.02.2023, the Ld. Counsel on behalf of complainant has tendered the account statement pertaining to plot No.1866, Sector 23, Sonipat and plot no.1562, Sector 23, Sonipat, which have been taken on record as Mark “A” and Mark “B” for adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             The allotment of plot no.1616, Sector-23. Sonipat measuring 300Sq Mtr. in favour of the complainant vide allotment letter dated 09.11.1992(Annexure C-1) at the tentative price of Rs.2,48,400/- is not in dispute. The part payment of Rs.62,100/- made by the complainant qua the price of the said plot is also not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the cheque dated 17.07.2019(Annexure C-13) amounting to Rs.2,28,390/-, which was sent by OP No.2 to complainant, vide letter dated 18.07.2019(Annexure C-12) in compliance of order dated 05.02.2018(Annexure C-10) passed by the Revisional Authority, was returned back by the complainant to OP No.2 without getting the same encashed.

6.             The grievances of the complainant are that the possession of said plot was offered to him vide letter dated 27.05.1998(Annexure C-2) without providing the basic amenities as well as completing the necessary development works in and around the plot in question. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that the possession of the plot was offered vide letter dated 27.05.1998(Annexure C-2) without providing basic amenities and that the physical possession of the said site was never delivered despite repeated request made by the complainant. It is contended that though the refund of the deposited amount was requested by the complainant but finding no relief, he was constrained to seek the interest compensation, on the deposited amount, by filing a consumer complaint no.211 dated 14.08.2000(Annexure C-3), which was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2000(Annexure C-4) by directing the OP to refund the deposited amount along with interest. It is contended that the said order was upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 14.07.2006(Annexure C-5) but the OP did not comply with the said order. It is further contended that the complainant finding no relief from the OPs withdrew his offer of surrender vide his application dated 24.05.2013(Annexure C-6), followed by application dated 05.10.2014(Annexure C-7) and application dated 08.01.2015 along with cheque of Rs.12,50,000/-(Annexure C-8 & C-9) respectively. The learned counsel contended that the OPs neither provided any relief to the complainant nor responded to the said application and thus, the complainant was compelled to file a revision petition(Annexure C-10) on 20.09.2016, before the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Town and Country Planning Department Chandigarh, wherein the request of the complainant seeking permission to deposit the balance amount of the plot was declined. It is further contended that an another Revision Petition (Annexure C-14)  filed by the complainant was also declined and he was advised to seek the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum vide letter(Annexure C-11). During arguments, the learned counsel invited our attention towards various cases, wherein, the OPs have restored the resumed plots by adopting the pick and choose policy. The learned counsel contended that the owners of plot No.1582 & plot no.1866, Sector-23, Sonipat, after a gap of 28/29 years were permitted by OP’s to deposit the balance amount i.e. 75% of the price of the plot. Reliance has been placed on several case laws details of which have been mentioned in various paras of the complaint.

7.             The OPs have contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in their written statement. As per preliminary objections, it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable, being based on mis-representation and concealment of the material facts. Further, the plea has been taken that the complainant has no cause of action or locus-standi to file the complaint. The above objections are rejected as Ops have not clarified as to how & why the complaint is not maintainable and which facts have been concealed in the complaint. Pertinently, a sum of Rs.63100/- as deposited by the complainant is still lying with the Ops and thus, there is valid cause of action in favour of the complainant.

8.             The next objection, which is taken by the OPs, is that the complainant is no more a consumer of OPs. This objection is also rejected in view of the fact that the plot in question was duly allotted in favour of the complainant and a sum of Rs.62100/- is still lying with the OPs. Further, the plea of limitation has been taken, which is also liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the present complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation from the rejection of the revision petition as conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 02.04.2021 (Annexure C-11).

9.             The last objection, though not taken in the written statement, is that as per Clause no.22 of the Allotment letter (Annexure C-1), the matter was liable to be referred to arbitrator, in case of any dispute arises between the parties.

10.            This objection is also rejected in view of the provisions contained in Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein it is provided that the remedy under the CP Act available to a consumer is in addition to any other remedy available under law and not in derogation of the remedies available to an aggrieved consumer. In this regard, we may place reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.22121 of 2014 decided on 21.09.2015 in case titled as Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.(M/s) Vs. Union of India, which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We may further rely upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs and others, (2004) 1 SCC 305 wherein it has been held that remedy under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the remedies available to aggrieved person.

11.            On merits, it is vehemently contended that the complainant has failed to deposit the due installments in time and thus, several notices, asking him to deposit the due installments as well as enhancement amount, were issued. It is contended that a rank defaulter is not entitled to any relief. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the case law upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled Sumitra Jain Vs. HUDA & Anr. in SLP (c )no. 14684 of 2013, decided on 29.04.2013.

12.            The learned counsel reiterating the averments  made in the complaint contended that the plot was  surrendered  by the Complainant  and accordingly, it was ordered by DCF, PKL vide its order dated 13.12.2000 to refund the amount of Rs.62,100/- alongwith interest @10% and compensation of Rs.1,000/-. It is contended that the revision petition filed by the complainant has also been dismissed by office of Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Town and Country Planning Department Chandigarh vide order dated 05.02.2018(Annexure C-10) and in compliance of the same, a cheque dated 17.07.2019(Annexure C-13) was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 18.07.2019(Annexure C-12) and thus, it has been prayed that the complaint, being baseless and meritless, is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed upon the following case laws:-

1. Rajiv Vohra Vs. State of Haryana & Others in CWP No.25455 of 2014 decided on 08.07.2016 by the Hon’ble High Court(P & H).
2. Sumitra Jain Vs. HUDA & Anr. in CWP No.15184 of 2011(O&M) decided on 01.10.2012 by Hon’ble High Court(P & H).
3. Smitra Jain Vs. HUDA & Anr. in SLP No(s).14864/2013 decided on 29.04.2013(SC).
4. M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & others in Civil Writ Petition no.9958 decided on 26.05.2022 by the Hon’ble High Court(P & H).
5. M/s M.B.Rice & General Mills Vs. Union of India & Ors in CWP No.20885 of 2016 decided on 04.10.2016 by the Hon’ble High Court(P & H).
6. Satnam Agro Industries Vs. Union of India & others in CWP No.23099 of 2016  and connected cases decided on 03.5.2019 by the Hon’ble High Court(P & H).

 

13.            Before looking into the rival contentions as raised by the learned counsel for both the parties, it may be mentioned that the plot in question was neither resumed nor its allotment was ever cancelled by the OPs. Since the complainant has raised a serious dispute about the non completion of development works as well as non providing of the basic amenities at site in question, it is necessary to look into the issue as to whether the OPs had provided the basic amenities, while making offer of the possession of the plot vide letter dated 27.05.1998(Annexure C-2). In this regard, despite the specific contention of the complainant with regard to the non-development of the area at the time of offer of possession, the Ops have not adduced any documentary evidence to dis-prove the contentions of the complainant. As per para no.9 of the order dated 13.12.2000 passed by DCF, Panchkula in complaint no.211, it is found that the complainant asserted at that time also qua the non completion of the development works. Relevant para, for the sake of convenience and clarity is reproduced as under:-

                Now turning towards the relief clause, it may be noticed that still the complainant is asserting that there is no development works in area where the plot has been allotted and has asked for interest compensation at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount deposited.

14.            Moreover, the DCF, Sonipat vide its order dated 01.02.2005 in complaint no.203 dated 08.07.2004 in respect of adjoining plot no.1615, Sector-23, Sonipat found that the area in question lacked basic amenities and due to non completion of the development works, an alternative plot was ordered to be allotted in lieu of the said adjoining plot no.1615, Sector-23, Sonipat. Pertinently, the OP no.2 in compliance of the said order passed by the DCF, Sonipat, allotted a plot no.342, Sector-23, Sonipat in lieu of the plot no.1615, sector-23, Sonipat. Therefore, it can, safely, be concluded that necessary development works were not completed & basic amenities were not made available prior to making offer of possession. As such, the offer of possession made vide letter dated 27.05.1998 (Annexure C-2) was not valid.

15.            In the light of above discussion, we may, safely, conclude that the complainant had sought the refund of his deposited amount under compelled circumstances vide letter dated 15.01.1999(Annexure R-6). In the said letter, it was the specific contention of the complainant that the developments work had not been carried out at site, which had compelled him to seek the refund of his deposited amount. Since, the deposited amount was not refunded to the complainant, he approached the DCF, Panchkula seeking interest compensation only instead of refund of his deposited amount. However, the DCF, Panchkula vide its order dated 13.12.2000(Annexure C-4) directed the OPs to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest and the said order was upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh vide its order dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure C-5).

16.            At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs had neither accepted the offer of surrender made by the complainant vide letter dated 16.01.1999(Annexure R-6) nor accepted the implied offer of surrender, which  had emerged out of the order dated 13.05.2000 passed by DCF, Panchkula. The complainant, admittedly, had sought the permission to deposit a sum of Rs.12,41,735/- qua  the outstanding installments along with interest etc. of the plot in question by withdrawing his offer of surrender vide application dated 05.10.2014 (Annexure C-7). Needless to mention here that the OPs were at liberty to accept the offer of surrender as mentioned above prior to the withdrawal of the offer of surrender made by the complainant vide application dated 24.05.2013 (Annexure C-6) but the OPs preferred not to accept the offer of surrender for reasons best known to them. As per Section 5 of the Contract Act, a proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards; therefore, a concluded contract cannot arise if the offer is withdrawn before it is accepted. Further, it is found that the complainant had sought the permission to deposit the balance amount qua the plot in question vide his application 05.10.2014 (Annexure C-7) followed by letter dated 08.01.2015(Annexure C-8) along with cheque dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure C-9), but the OPs neither accepted the request of the complainant nor given any reply in response to the said letters.

17.            Now, we advert to the defence of the OPs, which is solely based on the order dated 05.02.2018(Annexure C-10) passed in Revision Petition, wherein the OP No.2 has been directed to refund the deposited amount as per the order dated 13.12.2000 passed by DCF, Panchkula. The said order passed in revision suffers from serious legal infirmities as it does not speak about the withdrawal of the offer made by the complainant vide his letter dated 24.05.2013(Annexure C-6) followed by letter dated 05.10.2014(Annexure C-7) and letter dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure C-8) along with cheque amounting to Rs.12,50,000(Annexure C-9). The Revisional Authority had over looked the fact that the order dated 13.12.2000(Annexure C-4) passed by the DCF, Panchkula had become non executable being beyond 12 years. Therefore, the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Revisional Authority is of no help to the case of the OPs. Moreover, the sum of Rs.2,28,390/-, as sent by the OP No.2 to complainant vide cheque dated 17.07.2019(Annexure C-13) beyond a period of  12 years w.e.f. the order dated 11.07.2006 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.(Chandigarh), was returned back by the complainant to OP No.2 without getting the same encashed.

18.            Now coming to the last plea of the complainant with regard to the adoption of pick and choose policy, we find that the Ops have not specifically denied the restoration of similarly situated plots. In this regard, specific averments has been made by the complainant in Clause A to H of Para no. 19 and Para no.21 of the complaint. Further, as per para no.7 of the written submissions, it is specifically contended that plots no.783P and 837P of Sector-23, Sonipat, which were resumed, have been restored by OPs. The OPs have not rebutted the aforesaid contentions of the complainant qua the restoration of the similarly situated plot no.783P and 837P. It is relevant to highlight here that as per account statement of plot no. no.1866 Sector-23, Sonipat(Mark ‘A’) & plot no.1562, Sector-23, Sonipat (Mark ‘B‘), the allottee/owners of the said plots have been permitted to deposit the outstanding installments in the year 2020/2021 after a gap of about 28/29 years. Pertinently, the allottees/owners of said plots i.e. plot no.1866 and plot no.1582, Sector-23, Sonipat had deposited only the initial amount of 25% of the total tentative price of the plots. As per well settled legal proposition, discrimination between similarly situated persons by adopting pick and choose method applying different yardsticks is not permissible being in violation of principal of equality before law as enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the act of the Ops declining the request of the complainant to deposit the balance amount qua the price of the plot along with delayed interest etc. cannot be held valid, legal and justified.

19.            In the light of discussion made above, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are held to be deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

20.            Now to coming to relief, it is found that the complainant has claimed the physical possession of the plot in question along with direction to the OPs to accept all outstanding dues qua the plot in question from the complainant. Further, the direction has been sought against OPs not to charge any interest or penalty or any other amount from the complainant till the physical possession of the plot is given to the complainant. The compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges has also been claimed.

21.            As a sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against OPs as under:-

1. That the OPs are directed to accept all outstanding dues along with delayed interest as per HSVP Policy from the complainant qua the plot no.1616, Sector-23, Sonipat.
2. That the OPs are further directed to handover the physical possession of the said plot to the complainant after the receipt of all outstanding arrears alongwith interest etc. from the complainant.
3. That the OPs are directed not to charge any extension fee and surcharge thereon or penalty etc. on account of non construction of the plot till the offer of possession of said plot no.1616, Sector 23, Sonipat is made to the complainant.
4. That the OPs are directed to pay an interest compensation @9%p.a.(S.I.) on the deposited amount after the expiry of three years w.e.f. the date of deposit of 15% amount qua the price of the plot in question.
5. That the Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
6. That the OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as cost of litigation charges.

 

22.            The OPs No. 1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: 07.03.2023

 

                                Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

                                              Member                               President

 

Per Dr Sushma Garg : (Dissenting View)

                I have gone through the order passed by the Ld. President and the Ld. colleague Member however, with due respect, I could not convince myself with their views/ findings. In this case the complainant had earlier filed a complaint CC No.211 dated 14.08.2000, on the same issue. The said complaint was allowed by this commission (earlier known as Forum) vide order dated 13.12.2000 with the following directions:

        OPs are directed to refund Rs.62100/- deposited by the complainant with 10% interest per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit till realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost of proceedings.

The complaint did not file any appeal against the said order of this Commission, however, the Opposite Party HUDA preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal of the opposite party vide order dated 11.07.2006. Thus the order dated 13.12.2000 of this commission was upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission and the order of this commission merged in the order dated 11.07.2006 of the Hon’ble State Commission. The complainant did not file any appeal against the said order of the Hon’ble State Commission, hence, the order of the Hon’ble State Commission become final and binding on the parties. The complainant, however, requested the Opposite Party to restore the plot to him and accept the balance amount, interest and extension fees. The said offer was rejected by the OP. The revision petition filed by the complainant has also been dismissed by the Principal Secretary, Town and country planning, Haryana. The OPs have complied with the order of the District Forum/ commission and refunded the amount of Rs.228390/- vide cheque no. 001003 dated 17.07.2019.  In my humble view, when the complaint of the complainant has already been decided by this commission and further the order of this commission has been upheld by the State Commission, the appropriate remedy left with the complainant was to get the order of Hon’ble State Commission enforced by way of filing execution application u/s 71 of the CPA before this commission. The complainant could also file application for penal action against the op under section 72 of the CPA. The OPs have never accepted the offer of the complainant for restoration of the plot. Even the OPs have complied the order of District Commission by making the due payment vide cheque dated 17.07.2019 which has not been accepted by the complainant. Merely because the complainant has not accepted the cheque sent by OP in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission, that itself does not give any new right or any new cause of action to the complainant to file the present complaint. The complaint is otherwise also barred by limitation. This complaint instituted on 20.09.2021, which is after two years of the compliance of the earlier orders of this commission, is not maintainable on the same issue which has already been decided more than 20 years ago and the orders of the Distt. Commission / State Commission also stood complied with. After the orders of the Hon’ble State commission, the litigation has attained finality and the same issue cannot be agitated again. The present complaint is therefore dismissed.

 

Announced on : 07.03.2023                                  Dr. Sushma Garg

                                                                                Member

 

        As per the majority view expressed by Satpal, President and Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member, the complaint is partly allowed in the manner as stated in above paras No. 21 and 22 of this order. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced : 07.03.2023

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                                              Member                       President

 

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

 

                                         Satpal                                        

President