Delay condoned.

2.            By these two Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Complainant  questions the legality and correctness of the two orders both dated 14.05.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.142 and 143 of 2015.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has overturned the orders dated 14.11.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jhajjar (for short

-2-

“the District Forum”) in Complaints No.48 and 76 of 2013 and has dismissed the Complaints filed by the Petitioner observing thus:

    “ 4.   Learned counsel for HUDA has placed on record report (Annexure A-1) submitted by Executive Engineer to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh, certifying that the development works such as water supply, sewerage and roads have been completed.  Another report (Annexure A-2) of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division dated January 12^th, 2012 has also been relied upon wherein it is stated that electrification work, that is, LT line has already been provided in front of 949 plots and lines have been energized.  In both the reports, plot numbers of different sizes, that is 4, 6, 8, 10, 14 Marlas and 1 Kanal have been given.  In view of the reports of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Rohtak plot of complainant falls within the developed areas.  Report of Local Commissioner which is totally vague and pointing out that 24 meter road has not connected with Gurgaon road and high tension wire exists in the area of Sector etc. cannot have any relevance because basic amenities have been provided before offering possession except certain development works such as commercial establishments etc. which can only be developed after inhabitants start living there.  This Commission feels that since basic amenities have been provided, District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.

(emphasis supplied)

3.            The short controversy raised by the Complainant, in his Complaints before the District Forum, was that since all the basic facilities, like drinking water supply, sewerage, electrification etc. in relation to the plots of land (No.477 and 1255 A in Sector-6, Jhajjar) were not in place when possession of the plots was offered to him on 16.01.2012 and 22.01.2012 and in fact these facilities were commissioned not before 30.07.2016, the award of interest @ 9% p.a.

-4-

on the amount deposited by him, as per the policy declared by HUDA should be awarded till 30.07.2016 and not 16.01.2012 and 22.01.2012, as proposed by HUDA.  Accepting the stand of the Complainant, the District Forum had directed HUDA to pay to the Complainant interest              @ 9% p.a. on the amounts deposited by him after expiry of three years of the date of allotment, till the date of offer.  HUDA was also directed to provide basic amenities as per plan/scheme and to remove electric poles and high tension wires within a period of six months.  Additionally, HUDA was also directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment; ₹3,300/- as fees of the Local Commissioner and litigation expenses, quantified at ₹5,000/- in each of the cases.

4.            Despite service of notice in these Petitions on HUDA, it remained unrepresented on a number of dates.  Consequently, vide order dated 18.05.2016, notice was issued to the Chief Administrator, HUDA to appear in person along with the records pertaining to Sector 6, Jhajjar and assist us in making appropriate orders in these Petitions.  On 30.09.2016, when ultimately the Administrator, HUDA at Rohtak appeared along with the Estate Officer, on being apprised of the grievance of the Complainant, praying for redressal for the last almost a decade, we were assured that she would personally look into the matter and try to resolve the same to the extent possible. 

5.            In deference to the said order, the learned Administrator HUDA examined the case file and on 28.10.2016 passed the following orders (relevant for the present cases):

-5-

       “The Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Bahadurgarh has presented the copies of relevant                                      
record in support of his claim that the work of “Boring of three No. tubewells in Sector-6, Jhajjar” was allotted to a private contractual agency on 06.05.2008.  This work was completed by September, 2008.  The Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Bahadurgarh vide his office letter dated 29.12.2011 has reported to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh that the development works such as water supply, sewerage and roads have been completed.  The possession of the plot was offered on 22.01.2012.

     There is possibility that supply of water through HUDA sources may not have been become functional and interruption in the water supply to the intending users due to some technical defects.  But to avoid the scarcity of water for the users, water was supplied through 6280 No. water tankers in Sector-6, Jhajjar w.e.f. July, 2012 to July, 2016.  Now the arrangement of regular water supply has become operative since May, 2016.  Thus, petitioner cannot claim any relief on the ground of alleged failure of water supply of HUDA.  The date of offer of possession cannot be modified on this unsustainable and illegal demand of the Petitioner.

     After careful consideration of the record of the plot, record pertaining to the providing of basic amenities in Sector-6, Jhajjar, presentations of material by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh and Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division, Bahadurgarh, it has been decided that HUDA will stick to the date of offer of possession w.e.f. 16.01.2012 and the allottee will be liable to pay all outstanding dues, if any, under the HUDA policy.”

(emphasis supplied)

6.            At the outset we may note the two significant facts clearly emerging from the afore-extracted orders which are: (i) The order is based on the report of the Executive Engineer stating that water supply, sewerage and roads had been completed when possession was offered on 16.01.2012 and 22.01.2012; and (ii) Regular water supply had become operative since May 2016.

-6-

7.            On the next date of hearing, viz., 17.01.2017, it was pointed out on behalf of the Complainant that although in her orders dated 28.10.2016, the Administrator had observed that regular water supply had become operative since May 2016, she had not commented on the issues relating to sewerage system, removal of high tension wires, uncovered manholes etc.  It was, thus, stressed that since admittedly the basic facilities in the Sector, in particular the sewage disposal system and regular water supply was not in place, the material date for payment of interest by HUDA had to be at least May 2016.

8.            In light of the said assertion, learned Counsel appearing for the HUDA had prayed for time to seek instructions in this behalf.  While acceding to the prayer made on behalf of HUDA, the Administrator was directed to look into the grievance of the Complainant afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

9.            In deference to the said order, fresh orders dated 06.03.2017 have been passed by the Administrator.  Partly accepting the plea of the Complainant that the cut-off date for the purpose of award of interest could not be 2011, when the possession was to be offered, relying on the new policy dated 22.02.2017, circulated by HUDA, the Administrator has directed that interest @ 9% p.a., on the amounts deposited by the Complainant, be given from 07.03.2011 and 03.04.2011 to 16.01.2012 and 22.01.2012 i.e., the dates when the possession of the respective plots in question was offered to the Complainant. 

10.          Having noticed some ambiguity in the two afore-noted orders, particularly with regard to regular water supply, sewage disposal arrangement and shifting of High Tension Wire etc., vide order dated

-7-

17.03.2017, we had directed the Estate Officer concerned to furnish the information:

1. the date when the 24 meter wide road in the Sector in question, viz. Sector-6, was connected with the Gurgaon road;

2. the date when high tension electric wire pole of four pillars, situated between 24 meter wide road in Sector-24, was shifted;

3. the date when high tension wires passing over the plots in the Sector in question were shifted;

4. the actual date when the regular water supply through the pipelines became operational; and

5. the date when the sewerage treatment plant for the Sector became functional.

    

   11.          Pursuant to the said directions, an affidavit has been placed before us today, along with the site plan.  The affidavit filed by the Estate officer, reveals the following information:

6. A four pillar pole (high tension pole) still exists in the middle of 24 meter main road near Plot No.777-P;

7. Though water supply to the Sector in question was commissioned in December 2013 but on receipt of complaints from the plot holders of Sector 6 that the water was salty, tankers were deployed to supply drinking water to the plot holders, till the water connection was released by the Public Health Engineering Department, Haryana in September 2015;

8. Though the treated water connection from the said Department was sanctioned in the month of September 2015 but water supply through the pipeline became operational in October 2015;

9. So far, site for installation of Sewerage Treatment Plant has not been earmarked in Sector 6 or in the adjoining Sectors.

10. Although three number of High Tension Lines of 11 KVA, passing over Sector 6, were shifted on 10.10.2013 and another set of three such wires was shifted on 18.12.2013, a four pillar pole supporting 132 KVA High Tension Wire still exists on 24 meter road, but it does not create any hurdle to the Complainant

    -8-

    as it is far away from the houses of the Complainant and further an independent clear road is available to him to approach Rewari Road to Gurugram Road.

     

12.          Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and examined the correctness of the order impugned in these Petitions,

in the light of the information placed on record by means of the afore-noted affidavits, we are of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission, mainly on the basis of the report, submitted by the Executive Engineer of HUDA, is unsustainable.

13.          It is manifest from the afore-noted factual scenario, as emerging from the affidavits filed on behalf of HUDA that:

(i)   regular drinking water supply through the pipes was operational only from May 2016; (see: Administrator’s orders dated 28.10.2016)

(ii)   sewerage treatment plant is still not in place; (see Estate Officer’s affidavit dated 11.05.2017) and

(iii)   when possession was offered on 16.01.2012 and 22.01.2012, the Sector in question lacked basic facilities.                       

14.          Additionally, though the issue of existence of a four pillar pole, providing support to overhead 132 KVA HT Line, was not specifically raised in the Complaints but we are pained to note the stand of HUDA that the said pole does not affect the free movement of the Complainant.  Perhaps HUDA is waiting for some unfortunate incident to happen before it gets out of its slumber to take a decision for shifting of a highly dangerous H.T. pole, admittedly existing in the middle of the main                   24 meter wide road.  We say no more.  We have no hesitation in holding that the State Commission committed material irregularly in coming to the afore-extracted conclusion merely on the basis of the report of the Executive Officer of the HUDA, which, to say the least, on HUDA’s own

-9-

showing in the subsequent affidavit, was factually incorrect.  We are constrained to observe that even the information furnished to the Administrator by the Executive Engineer concerned was not correct.

15.          In view of the afore-going, both the Revision Petitions are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside with a direction that the Complainant will be entitled to interest on the amounts deposited by him, @ 9% p.a., payable in terms of the HUDA’s policy dated 22.02.2017, from 07.03.2011 to 30.05.2016 (in respect of Plot No.477) and from 03.04.2011 to 30.05.2016 (in respect of plot No.1255-P), both in Sector-6, Jhajjar.    

16.          The Complainant shall be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹10,000/-, in each of the cases, which shall be paid by the HUDA within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

17.          Both the Revision Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.