District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.631/2021.
Date of Institution: 07.12.2021.
Date of Order: 21.11.2022.
Ashok Kumar Jindal S/o late Shri Chhote Lal Jindal R/o H No. 1848, Sector-16, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Estate Officer, Haryana Sahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Faridabad.
2. The administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad.
3. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sudarshan Kumaar, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the one of legal heir of late Shri Chhottey Lal S/o Sh. Tirkha Ram, who was the owner of house NO. 1848, Sector-16, Faridabad. Shri Chhottey Lal expired on 07.08.1999. The father of the complainant late Shri Chhottey Lal executed a conveyance deed form the office of opposite party on 26.03.1974. The father of the complainant had paid the full and final payment of the department and the building was constructed in the year 1975/76 after obtaining the building plans approved by the opposite party. The father of the complainant after constructing the building was residing with his family in the said house and regularly paying house tax to the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. It was also submitted that before approval of building plans, on request of the applicant architect vide letter dated 25.05.1974 had provide the instructions /guidelines and vide letter memo No. 5722 dated 20.05.1974 Executive Engineer, Indl. Area, P.H. Division Faridabad intimated to Estate Officer, Urban Estate Faridabad that the plan was OK and might be approved so far as this division was concerned. The complainant and his family was residing in the said premises and regularly paying electricity charges, water charges and sewer charges to the concerned department. The complainant had submitted an application to the opposite party No.1 to transfer the house in his name in death case. Vide application dated 16.06.2021 alongwith other required documents but no response/information had been provided by the opposite party No.1, hence the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1, the official of opposite party intimated that the house cannot be transferred as the completion certificate of the said house was not obtained by the owner of the said house and the extension fee from 1987 onwards i.e. Rs.33,00,000/- was liable to pay. The complainant had approached the opposite party several times but the opposite parties were not paying any heed to the request of the complainant. It was also submitted that the complainant personally approached the office of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to provide the house tax assessment to the office of opposite party No.1, and also intimate that the building was constructed in the year 1976-76 and complainant was paying house tax from 1980 to till date,, but they had also not provided the required information to the office of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 also failed to obtained the said information from the office of Muncipal Corporation, Faridabad. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) Transfer the plot in favour of the complainant in death case, as all the formalities had been completed.
b) Issue completion certificate and not to charge any type of no construction fee/extension fee.
c) Issue completion certificate and not to charge any type of non construction fee/extension fee.
d) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
e) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and admitted to the extent that the complainant had submitted an application to the opposite party No.1 to transfer the house in his name in death case vide application that the official of opposite party intimated that the above house cannot be transferred as the completion certificate of the said house was not obtained by the owner of the said house and the extension fee from 1987 onwards i.e. Rs.33,00,000/- was liable to pay. As per policy of HSVP vide memo No. UB-A-6-2017/11896 date 19.01.2017 “Providing one time opportunity to all alottees of Residential & Commercial Sites, in Mandi Township/HUDA Urban Estates, who had occupied the building without obtaining valid Occupation certificate , to make an application for issuance of Occupation certificate – also waiving of extension fee beyond the actual date of completion”. The complainant had not availed the above said opportunity and not even applied in the HSVP Department for waiving of extension fee beyond the actual date of completion as HSVP Department had published it through press note, distribution of pamphlets. The complainant wrote a letter dated 21.01.2022 in Single Window Service for current dues till date. After receiving the said letter the answering opposite parties wrote a letter memo No. 2839 dated 19.2.2021 and informed the complainant to deposit Rs.32,36,796/-. As per latest allottee account statement dated 11.02.2022, the total current outstanding amount comes Rs.32,78,936/-. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Haryana Urban Development Authority with the prayer to: a) Transfer the plot in favour of the complainant in death case, as all the formalities had been completed. b) Issue completion certificate and not to charge any type of no construction fee/extension fee. c) Issue completion certificate and not to charge any type of non construction fee/extension fee. d) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . e) pay Rs. 21,000/-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar Jindal,, Ex.C1 – Receipt dated 28.09.1999, Ex.C2 – Conveyance deed, Ex.C-3 – Approval of building plan letter dated 05.08.1974, Ex.C-4 & 5 – House tax Receipts, Ex.C-5 – not readable,, Ex.C-6 – letter No. 5722 dated 20.05.1974, Ex.C-7 – Receipt, Ex.C-8 – electricity bill cum receipt,, Ex.C-8/A – Electricity bill cum receipt, Ex.C-9 – receipt, Ex.C-10 – letter dated 16.6.2021 regarding issue of transfer letter of house No. 1848, sector-16, Urban Estate, Faridabad,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Amit Kumar, Estate Officer, HSVP, Sector-12, Faridabad , letter dated 19.01.2017, Allotte Account Statement, letter No. 2839 , letter dated 21.01.2021 regarding current dues till date,
6. It is evident from Ex.C-2 that the father of the complainant late Shri Chhottey Lal executed a conveyance deed on 26.03.1974. As per Ex.C-3 the building was constructed in the year 1975-76 after obtaining the building plans approved by the opposite party. The father of the complainant after constructing the building was residing with his family in the said house and regularly paying house tax to the Muncipal Corporation Faridabad vide Ex.C-4. The complainant and his family was residing in the said premises and regularly paying electricity charges, water charges and sewer charges to the concernment department vide Ex.C-7 to C9.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that occupation certificate was issued by the opposite party was long back and the building was constructed with the direction of opposite party in the year 1975-76. The complainant and his family was residing in the said premises and regularly paying electricity charges, water charges and sewer charges to the concernment department vide Ex.C-7 to C9.. It seems that this is a perfect case of approval.
8 After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed with the direction to submit other LR’s of the deceased Chhote Lal Jindal who was expired on 7.8.1999. Opposite party is also directed to waive off the extension fee of non construction of building as per the new policy of the HUDA. Opposite parties are further directed to issue completion certificate of the building after taking the necessary documents from the complainant and charges the late fee on completion certificate. Opposite parties are also directed to verify the date of construction and all evidence in due course of law and issue the completion certificate as per the terms and conditions of HUDA and also give the benefit to the complainant on any earlier policy issued by the HUDA in favour of the other complainants as per rules. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. In case of non compliance of the above said order within 30 days, EO HUDA is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation from his own pocket.file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 21.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
