Haryana

Kaithal

409/20

Urmila Gaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Estate Office.Haryana Sehri Vikas Pradhikaran - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Karan Gaur

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.409 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 20.11.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:22.08.2022.

Urmila Gaur, aged 70 years, w/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Gaur r/o # 345/7, Kothi Gate, near Gandhi Park, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Estate Officer, Haryana Sehri Vikas Pradhikarn, Kaithal O/o Sector-19, Urban Estate, Kaithal.
2. Chief Administrator Officer, Haryana Sehri Vikas Pradhikarn, O/o Sector-6, Panchkula.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Vinay Verma, Adv. alongwith Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Urmila Gaur-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that initially, vide allotment letter bearing memo No.Z0004/EO0007/UE015/GALOT/

0000000455 dt. 25.05.2011, plot-10 marla bearing No.795 was allotted by the respondents in the name of Om Parkash S/o Mange Ram r/o Rohtak.  It is alleged that the tentative cost of plot was Rs.26,72,460/-, out of which Rs.2,38,200/- (10% of total cost of tentative price of plot in dispute) was paid and further Rs.4,29,915/- (15% of total cost of tentative price of plot in dispute) was deposited with the respondents in the shape of demand draft bearing No.647676 dt. 17.06.2011.  It is further alleged that remaining 75% tentative cost of plot in dispute i.e. Rs.20,04,345/-, in consonance of clause 6 of allotment letter dt. 25.05.2011, was opted to be paid in six yearly installment of Rs.3,34,058/- each falls due on 25^th day of month May of year w.e.f. 2012 to 2017.  The plot in dispute was further transferred/re-allotted in the name of complainant by the respondents vide re-allotment letter dt. 04.11.2016.  It is further alleged that the respondents could not offer the possession of plot in dispute to the complainant within stipulated period i.e. 25.05.2017 and lastly vide letter bearing memo No.Z0004/UE015/OFPOS/0000000352 offered the possession of plot in dispute to the complainant w.e.f. 06.01.2019.  The complainant approached the respondents and asked its officials to issue non-encumbrance certificate and no dues certificate pertaining to plot in dispute but the respondents told the complainant that still amount of Rs.3,33,929/- towards some installment of cost of plot in dispute is due and also required the complainant to deposit the same alongwith interest of Rs.1,74,283/- (i.e. total Rs.5,08,212/-).  The complainant asked the officials of respondents that she had already deposited the amount of Rs.29,02,115/- uptill 05.09.2016 against tentative cost of plot in dispute i.e. Rs.26,72,460/- but the officials of respondents told the complainant that out of Rs.29,02,115/- deposited by the complainant, amount of Rs.23,38,531/- was adjusted towards cost of plot an amount of Rs.5,63,586/- has been adjusted towards interest on account of delay in payment of installments.  It is alleged that as per the term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter i.e. 25.05.2011 after completion of development work in the area but the Ops failed to comply with the condition No.7 of the allotment letter.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the original allottee did not make the payment of any of the installments and made the first payment only on 18.07.2016.  As per the terms of allotment letter dt. 25.05.2011, the original allottee became liable to pay the interest on delayed payment as per clause 25 of the original allotment letter.  Thus, there arose dues of Rs.14,75,804/- towards the first three installments including the delayed interest.  As on 01.09.0261, Rs.5,86,452/- was payable towards the first three installments/delayed interest.  The original allottee, however, deposited Rs.6,49,050/- on 01.09.2016 against the above-said due amount.  Thereafter, further amount was deposited by the original allottee on 03.09.2016 and 05.09.2016.  The original allottee vide application dt. 06.09.2016 requested to issue the transfer permission regarding the plot in favour of Urmila Gaur (Present complainant) and transfer permission was granted to him by the respondents vide letter dt. 04.10.2016.  The respondents issued re-allotment letter in favour of complainant vide letter dt. 04.11.2016.  The possession of the plot was formally offered vide memo No.6422 dt. 31.12.2018 after completion of all the basic amenities.  Consequent to the offer of possession dt. 31.12.2018, the complainant became liable to pay the possession interest as per the conditions of the allotment letter.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Sh. Vinay Verma, Adv. alongwith Sh. Karan Gaur, Adv. for the complainant have argued that the allotment letter was issued on 25.05.2011 and tentative cost of plot in question was Rs.26,72,460/-, out of which Rs.2,38,200/- (10% of total cost of tentative price of plot in dispute) was paid alongwith application form submitted with the respondents.  It has been further argued that the amount of Rs.4,29,915/- (15% of total cost of tentative price of plot in dispute) was deposited with the respondents in the shape of demand draft bearing No.647676 dt. 17.06.2011.  It has been further argued that remaining 75% tentative cost of plot in dispute i.e. Rs.20,04,345/-, in consonance of clause 6 of allotment letter dt. 25.05.2011, was opted to be paid in six yearly installment of Rs.3,34,058/- each falls due on 25^th day of month May of year w.e.f. 2012 to 2017.  It has been further argued that as per clause No.7 of allotment letter pertaining to plot in dispute, the respondents were to offer the possession of plot in dispute within the period of three years from the date of allotment of letter i.e. upto 25.05.2014 that too after completion of development work in the area.  It has been further argued that clause No.26 of allotment letter dt. 25.05.2011, containing schedule for payment of balance price of plot in dispute mentioned in para No.7 of the complaint.  It has been further argued by Sh. Vinay Verma, Adv. for the complainant that the possession was to be given by the respondents-HSVP till 25.05.2014 while there was delay in the delivery of possession and plot was re-allotted to the complainant-Urmila Gaur on 04.11.2016, whereas the complainant had been paying the interest w.e.f. 05.09.2016 till 06.01.2019 which was wrongly taken by the respondents-HSVP.  It is admitted by both the parties that there was delay in delivery of possession of the plot. 

7.             Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the respondents-HSVP has stated that vide Annexure-R1 clause-19 sub clause-2, it has been mentioned that the complainant cannot raise any dispute regarding payment of interest on the amount paid by the original allottee.  He has placed reliance upon the following authorities laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sudesh Gupta Vs. HUDA bearing revision petition No.3448 of 2011 decided on 19.11.2020; Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sanjeev Goyal Vs. HUDA bearing revision petition No.3298 of 2015 decided on 03.03.2022 and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as HUDA Vs. Diwan Singh bearing Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2003 decided on 23.10.2008 in which it was held that re-allottee in 1998 cannot obviously be awarded interest from 1992 on the amounts paid by the original allottee in 1990 on the ground that the original allottee was not offered delivery in 1990.  But the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of present case. In the case under discussion titled as HUDA Vs. Diwan Singh (supra), the re-allotee was re-allotted the plot in the year 1998.  Hence, he could not be awarded interest w.e.f. 1992 on the amounts paid by the original allottee in 1990 because the payments towards the installments of the plot were paid by the original allottee.  In the present case, the plot was re-allotted to the complainant-Urmila Gaur on 04.11.2016.  Two installments were deposited by the original allottee.  Remaining installments were paid by the complainant-Urmila Gaur.  Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the respondents-HSVP has objected that the installments were paid by the original allottee and not by Urmila Gaur.  He has further objected that as per Annexure-R1, clause-19 sub clause-2, complainant cannot raise any dispute regarding payment of interest paid by the original allottee.   

8.             Rebutting his arguments, Sh. Vinay Verma, Adv. for the complainant has argued that as per Section 115 of Evidence Act, there is doctrine of estoppel against the respondents because the respondents cannot put any arbitrary condition which is against the law.  Sh. Vinay Verma, Adv. for the complainant has stated at bar that except two installments paid by the original allottee, remaining all the installments were paid by the complainant-Urmila Gaur.  Hence, it is held that for delay payment of possession of plot, respondents-HSVP is directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the installments paid by the complainant-Urmila Gaur w.e.f. 05.09.2016 till 06.01.2019 within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.11,000/- which will be paid by the respondents to the complainant.             

9.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against Ops shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:22.08.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.