Haryana

StateCommission

A/256/2023

HSVP - Complainant(s)

Versus

DALIP CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. BENIWAL

12 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.256 of 2023

                   Date of Institution:14.03.2023

Date of Decision:12.09.2024

 

1.      Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.

 

2.      Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Hisar District Hisar.

 

3.      Estate Officer, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

 

 

…Appellants

Versus

 

 

Dalip Chand S/o Shri Shankar Ram, R/o House No.54, Block No.2, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

 

…Respondent

 

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

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Shri  B.S. Beniwal counselfor the appellants.

                   Respondent-Dalip Chand in person.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Delay of 92 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      Appellants-OPs-Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran&Anr., have filed the instant appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa whereby complaint filed by complainant-Dalip Chandwas allowed with following directions:

“Keeping in view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.13,300/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 12.03.2021 till realization of this amount. We further direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  The OPs are directed to comply this  order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to initiate proceedings under sections 71/72 of the Act against the OPs.”

3.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an allottee in respect of plot measuring 6 marlas, bearing No.245, Sector-20, Part-I, HUDA, Sirsa. The complainant got sanctioned the site plan of the plot  in question from the OPs and thereafter got raised the construction of his residential house, which was completed on 31.07.1993.  After completion of the house, the complainant applied for issuance of completion certificate in the office of EO, HUDA, Sirsa on 05.08.1993.  Administrator, HUDA Hisar vide its office memo No.16578 dated 14.11.2017 has decided the date of completion of construction over plot No.245.  In this letter, Administrator, HUDA further directed the EO, HUDA, Sirsa not to charge the extension fee after 31.12.1993.   In the year 2016, the OPs adopted a policy for providing one time opportunity to all the allottees of Mandi Township/ HUDA Estate, who occupied the buildings without obtaining the valid occupation certificate to make an application for issuance of occupation certificate and also waiving of extension fee beyond the actual date of completion. The OP No.1 issued a letter No.UB-A-6-2016/46612-13 dated 11.08.2016 in this regard.  In this letter it was also mentioned that in the past HUDA had formulated policy guidelines on the subject in the year 2004, which remained in force till the year 2014 and that HUDA has found that there still remain a considerable number of allottees who have been occupying the building without having a valid occupation certificate and in order to accommodate such allottees, the above policy dated 11.08.2016 was adopted by the HUDA. The OP did not decide the request of the complainant for occupying the house.  The complainant was issued the occupation certificate by the OPs vide memo dated 12.01.2018.   On 28.11.2016, the complainant deposited Rs.11,500/- as processing fee in view of policy of 2004.  OP No.3 vide its office Memo No.581 dated 22.03.2018 refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant out of aforesaid amount of Rs.11,500/-.   Again in December 2018, the complainant was required by OPs to deposit another amount of Rs.11,800/- towards processing fees, which was also deposited by the complainant on 19.12.2018. The complainant completed his construction in the year 1993 and he applied for issuance of occupation certificate on 05.08.1983  and occupation certificate was issued by the OPs on 12.01.2018, so by no stretch of imagination, the complainant was liable to pay any processing fee to the OPs.   In this manner, a sum of Rs.13,300/- has been got deposited by the OPs from complainant unnecessarily and without any reasonable cause and justification. The complainant was entitled to refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,300/- from OPs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.  He requested the OPs  by way of application dated 17.11.2020 to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,300/- but to of no use. He moved an application on CM Window on 05.03.2020 but the same was disposed of at the back of complainant on 20.08.2020. The complainant prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,300/- from OPs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.Thus there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

4.      Notice being issued, OPs appeared and filed written statement.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, for want of cause of action, suppression of material facts, no locus standi and complaint is false, frivolous and fictitious etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.  On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant made a written request for refund of amount of Rs.13,300/- and OPs duly replied  the same vide letter No.181860 dated 07.10.2019.  Reply was sent to the complainant through different letters dated 05.11.2019, 27.11.2019, 06.12.2019, 23.12.2019 and 06.01.2020.  It was submitted that  OPs inadvertently and mistakenly refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.   Vide letter dated 07.10.2019 the complainant was duly informed by OPs that an amount of Rs.11,800/- were got deposited from the complainant for exemption of extension fee of his residential house situated at Sector 20 Part I HUDA. Administrator HUDA, Hisar vide its letter dated 14.11.2017 had directed not to charge any extension fee from 31.12.1993. Hence, the above amount deposited by the complainant was qua the processing fee for exemption of extension fee. The same was not at all returnable/refundable to the complainant.  There was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.10.2022 and relevant portion of the order is mentioned in para No.2 of the order.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order.

7.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent-Dalip Chand in person. With theirkind assistance the entire record of appeal and that of complaint alongwith Ex.C-1 to C-19 and Ex. R-1 werethoroughly perused andexamined.

8.      Learned counsel for the OPs/appellants vehemently argued thatthe complainant had duly deposited the processing fee and he also made a request for refund of amount of Rs.13,300/-, but, OPs inadvertently and mistakenly refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The above noted amount was processing fee for waiving off extension fee. Further argued that the complainant had duly deposited Rs.11,800/- for exemption of extension fee of his residential house situated at Sector 20 Part I, HUDA.  Further argued that OPs vide letter dated 14.11.2017 had directed not to charge any such extension fee from 31.12.1993. The amount deposited by the complainant was qua the processing fee for exemption of extension fee and the same was not at all returnable. The learned District Consumer Commission  has passed wrong and illegal  order and the same was liable to be set aside.

9.      Respondent- Dalip  Chand in person vehemently argued that the OPs had wrongly charged the amount of processing fee for exemption of extension fee. He  further argued that complainant completed his construction in the year 1993, whereafter he applied for issuance of occupation certificate on 05.08.1993  and thereafter the occupation certificate was issued by the OPs on 12.01.2018.

10.    As per the terms and conditions of allotment letter, the OPs could not levy the processing fee for exemption of extension fee. Since the complainant applied the occupation certificate in the year 1993, why OPs demanded illegal money from him  with regard to processing fee for exemption of extension fee. Hence, the OPs-appellants already violated its terms and conditions of the allotment letter.  The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

11. Statutory amount of Rs.22,625/- was deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal. This amount is now ordered to be refunded to complainant-Dalip Chand against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules and registry of this Commission is accordingly directed.

12.  

13.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

14.    File be consigned to record room.

 

12^th September, 2024         S.P.Sood                                                      T.P. S. Mann

                                                Judicial Member                                         President

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)