District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.216/2021.

 Date of Institution: 0904.2021.

Date of Order: 12.12.2022.

Surinder Singh Puri through GPA Shri. Rameshwar Bansal, resideant of House No. 169, Sector-17, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-12, Faridabad.

2.                The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, sEctor-12, Faridabad.

                                                                   …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. A.K.Sharma,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Y.K.Sharma, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant had purchased the clinic site N.3, Sector-2 Palwal through open auction and letter of intent was issued by the opposite party No.1 vide memo No. 12915 dated 29.2.2008 with terms and conditions mentioned in therein.  The complainant had full filed all the terms and conditions of the letter of intent and also deposited the 15% amount of Rs.7,20,000/-, hence completed the payment of 25% of the cost within time. Further the installments were also paid in time.  Opposite party No.1 had issued the allotment letter of land measuring 231 sq. mtrs as clinic site No.3, Sector-2, Palwal vide memo NO. 32625 dated 7.7.2008 as all the formalities and conditions of the letter of intent was completed by the complainant. The clinic site was purchased by the complainant for running a proper clinic and accordingly applied for sanction of building plan so that the building might be constructed and the opposite party No.1 had sanctioned the building plan vide memo NO. 2392 dated 15.09.2008.  the complainant had arrange the funds for construction  of the building and also tendered the work of construction in the year 2010 and further a GPA was also executed in favour of his dear and near friend to look after the works of construction and other type of works in respect of clinic site No.3, Sector-2, Palwal.  It has come to the notice of the complainant that the opposite party was allowing the clinic and consultancy permission in the residential premises by charging pity amount from the allottee of the residential plots, hence there was no benefit to spend the huge amount to purchase the clinic site, whereas, in the residential premises, the opposite parties were allowing clinic/consultancy permission.  The complainant had submitted an application to the opposite party No.1 to refund the deposited amount by surrending the site, as no development at

site and fruitful purpose had been solved due to their policy/decision to allow clinic/nursing home/consultancy permission in the residential premises.  The  opposite party was bound to pay total deposited amount of Rs.18,12,000/- but the opposite party with malafide intention to grab the money of the complainant sent the cheque of Rs.89,762/- an now the balance money was lying with the opposite party and the opposite party had also failed to pay the interest over the said amount from the date of deposit till date of its realization and moreover the opposite party was liable to pay the interest @ 24% p.m. over the said deposited amount, and the opposite party could not escape from their liability to pay the payment and the opposite party could not withheld the remaining payment. The opposite party had sent a cheque of Rs.89,762/- to the complainant instead of total deposited amount of Rs.18,12,000/- and the opposite party had also failed to pay the interest to the complainant.  As per the above facts and circumstances, the opposite party No.1 was liable to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.  The complainant had approached the opposite party several times but the opposite parties  were not paying any heed to the legitimate request of the complainant and the opposite party flatly effused to accede the legitimate quest of the complainant. 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)                refund the total deposited amount of Rs.18,12,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment.

b)                interest on the short payment of Rs.89762/- from the date of deposit and till its realization of the said amount @ 24% p.a.

c)                 pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

d)                 pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite parties  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that   the site in question was open auctioned on dated 29.02.2008 by HSVP & Shri Surinder Singh Puri purchased the site in Rs.48,00,000/-.  It was further  submitted that the letter of intent was issued in favour of the higher bidder Shri Surinder Singh  Puri vide this office memo No. 12915 dated 29.02.2008 measuring 231 sq. meters.  It was further submitted that the allotment was issued vide this office memo No.32625 dated 07.07.2008.  It was further submitted that the site was given to the allottee on dated 30.07.2008.  The allotteee of site Shri Surinder Singh Puri received the GPA in favour of Shri Surinder Singh Puri received the GPA in favour of Shri Rameshwar Parsad on dated 20.12.2011.  The GPA holder Shri Rameshwar Parsaid was surrender the site on dated 09.05.2017. As per HSVP policy an amount of Rs,8,97,063/- was refunded to the applicant on dated 08.08.2017.  Opposite parties 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)  refund the total deposited amount of Rs.18,12,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. b)      interest on the short payment of

Rs.89762/- from the date of deposit and till its realization of the said amount @ 24% p.a. c)    pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d)  pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Ramehwar Bansal,Ex.-1 – letter dated 29.02.2008 regarding letter of intent for allotment of site, Ex-2  to 4 – receipts, Ex.-5 – letter dated 07.07.2008 regarding allotment letter, Ex.-6 -  letter regarding building plans of plot No. Clinic 3 dated 2 Palwal,, Ex.-7 – General power of attorney,, Ex.-8 – letter dated 09.05.2017, Ex.-9 – letter dated 16.05.2017,, Ex.-10 – letter dated 21.07.2008 regarding policy for regularization of nursing home running from residential premises,

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated

and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite parties – affidavit of Shri Amit Kumar, estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-12, Faridabad, Annx.R-1 – letter dated 07.07.2008 regarding allotment letter of land measuring 231 sq. mtrs. Clinic/nursing home site No.3-P, Sector-2, Palwal in Urban Estate, Ex.R-2 – General Power of Attorney, Annx.R-3 – letter dated 09.05.2017.

6.                The complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer  to refund the total deposited amount of Rs.18,12,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment and interest on the short payment of Rs.89762/- from the date of deposit and till its realization of the said amount @ 24% p.a.

7.                After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to over haul the account of the complainant and refund the paid amount along with

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of  deposited amount till its realization after deducting the money which  has already been paid by the  opposite party to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  12.12..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.