BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.116 of 2011
Date of Institution : 17.5.2011
Date of Decision : 7.9.2016.
Jagdish Chander Beniwal son of Shri Hari Ram Beniwal, resident of Kothi No.451, Sector 20-Part-II, HUDA Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant. Versus.
- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sirsa.
- Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar.
- Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………… PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.D.Bishnoi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Deepesh Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that he purchased one plot bearing No.580-P, situated at HUDA, Sector-19-part, Sirsa, measuring area 330 sq. meter from Smt. Minakshi Sachdeva wife of Krishan Sachdeva, resident of Sirsa and submitted transfer application and other required documents to the opposite parties alongwith required fees for the purpose. The said plot was accordingly transferred in favour of complainant and re-allotment letter bearing No.2567 dated 14.3.2011 was issued to the complainant by ops. As per the terms and conditions of allotment letter, it was agreed that the complainant shall pay the remaining amount in installments without interest till offer of possession and offer of possession shall be given to the complainant on completion of all basic amenities in the sector like roads, sewerage, parks, street light, water supply, community centre, school and electric lines etc. Hence, the complainant as well as the ops are duly bound by the terms and conditions of allotment letter. The ops are duly bound to provide all the basic amenities on the spot prior to the offer of possession. But without providing all basic amenities, the ops have given offer of possession with the motive to extort the amount of interest on remaining installment in an illegal and improper manner. In fact, the ops are not entitled to get any interest from complainant. The complainant wants to raise construction and submitted site plan of his residence and deposited required fees for the purpose, which was accordingly sanctioned by the ops vide memo No.3031 dated 20.4.2011. The complainant has collected raw material on the spot but he is unable to raise construction of his house in the absence of basic amenities, electricity, water and sewerage etc. The sewerage disposal of sector 20 has been left towards vacant plots of sector 20-Part-III after crossing the road towards Section 19 and there is foul smell and dirty water remains lying present throughout and it is impossible for the complainant to raise construction in the absence of basic amenities. The complainant moved an application to the ops on 27.4.2011 to provide electric, water and sewerage connection. The ops sent the complainant to DHBVN, Sirsa for getting electric connection but Dharam Singh, JE of Nigam clearly told that area of this sector has not been handed over to the Nigam, so electric connection cannot be granted to him. Then complainant met with Ramditta JE of ops, who assured the complainant that connection shall be supplied to him within 3-4 days but all in vain. Due to the act and conduct of the ops, the complainant is suffering recurring financial losses and their act comes under the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant approached the ops to admit his claim and to provide basic amenities but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the ops to provide all basic amenities and not to charge any interest till providing the same and to pay rupee one lac and value of the raw material and to pay Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith interest @2% per month till payment as compensation for harassment etc.
3. Upon notice, Opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppal and locus standi. It has been submitted that complainant is not the consumer of HUDA. It is worth while to mention here that the complainant is a subsequent purchaser of the plot in question. Originally the plot in question was allotted to one Nathu Ram son of Shri Pokhar Ram, resident of Sirsa vide allotment letter No.11064 dated 25.9.2008. Later on, this plot was transferred in the name of Smt. Minakshi Sachdeva, resident of Rania and complainant purchased this plot from her. As per latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, the subsequent purchaser does not fall under the definition of consumer and as such complainant cannot question about the development of the sector. However, it is made clear that the sector in question is fully developed and all the basic amenities have already been provided. The complainant can construct his house easily. The sector in question has already been handed over to DHBVN, Sirsa for providing electricity connection. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of re-allotment letter, offer of possession to Smt. Minakshi dated 21.1.2011, letter dated 25.4.2011 written to complainant regarding water connection, applications moved by complainant to provide basic amenities, letter bearing Endst. No.4451-4453 dated 2.5.2011, application for seeking information under RTI Act, letter dated 17.5.2011, information sought under RTI Act, 2005, letter dated 10.6.2011, letter bearing Endst. No.4718, applications, letter dated 23.5.2011, letter dated 12.8.2011, letter bearing No.1835 dated 12.8.2011, letter dated 7.7.2011 as Ex.C1 to Ex.C19, newspaper cuttings Ex.C20 and Ex.C21 and photographs Ex.C22 to Ex.C24. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavit of Sh. Amarjit Singh, Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa as Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. From the documents available on file, it is evident that originally the plot in question was allotted to one Nathu Ram son of Shri Pokhar Ram vide allotment letter bearing No.11064 dated 25.9.2008 which is available on file. Thereafter, the plot in question was sold to Smt. Minakshi Sachdeva wife of Sh. Krishan Sachdeva, resident of Rania and same was allotted to her and accordingly offer of possession was also given to her as is evident through letter dated 21.1.2011 placed on file by the complainant as Ex.C2. Then the plot in question was transferred to the complainant and same has been re-allotted to the complainant on 14.3.2011 as is evident through re-allotment letter bearing No.2567 dated 14.3.2011 Ex.C1. The complainant is alleging that Sector 19 where the plot in question is situated is not fully developed and without providing basic amenities, the opposite parties have given offer of possession only to fetch interest on the remaining installments, which is wrong and illegal. However, we found no substance in the contentions of the complainant. The plot in question has been re-allotted to the complainant on 14.3.2011 and he has filed the present complaint just within two months of the re-allotment i.e. on 17.5.2011. Since, complainant being re-allottee of the plot, has purchased the same with open eyes, now it cannot allege any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has duly accepted the terms and conditions of the re-allotment letter Ex.C1 and there is no condition regarding development works etc. in this re-allotment letter. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as S.C. Jain Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, I (2013) CPJ 138 (NC) has held that “respondents in the three appeals are not the original allottees. They are re-allottees to whom re-allotment was made by the appellant in the year 1994, 1997 and 1996 respectively. They were aware, when the plots were re-allotted to them, that there was delay (either in forming the layout itself or delay in delivering the allotted plot on account of encroachment, etc.). In spite of it, they took re-allotment. Their cases cannot be compared to the cases of original allottees who were made to wait for a decade or more for delivery and thus put to mental agony and harassment. They were aware that time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of the contract and the original allottees had accepted the delay.” Reliance can also be placed on the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Som Prakash & ors. Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & ors. I (2013) CPJ 7 (NC) relied upon by learned counsel for ops.
7. The above said authorities are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, since the complainant is the re-allottee of the plot in question, therefore, as per settled law if the complainant was not satisfied with the development works in the area, then he should have avoided the purchase of the plot from previous allottee. The authority of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) through Estate Officer Vs. Mrs. Gurvinder kaur and anr. decided on 5.8.2010 cited by learned counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present cases as in that case there was dispute regarding refund of interest and that case is altogether on different footings.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint. Resultantly, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:7.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
