Haryana

Kaithal

14/14

Smt Puspa Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Estate Officer Huda - Opp.Party(s)

Ramphal

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 14/14
 
1. Smt Puspa Rani
Kaithal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Estate Officer Huda
Kaithal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jagmal Singh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Harisha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Ramphal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Hardeep Singh, Advocate
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.14/14.

Date of instt.: 13.01.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 21.08.2015.

Smt. Pushpa Rani, wife of Lokesh Kumar Virmani, resident of H.No.1285/19(1) HUDA, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal.

2. Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (Haryana).

..……..Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

                       

         

Present :        Sh. Ramphal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                      

                       ORDER

 

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

 

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that HUDA, Kaithal allotted the plot in favour of complainant vide memo No.3972 dt. 06.10.2000 bearing residential plot No.1285, Sector 19(1) HBP U/E at Kaithal for a total consideration of Rs.1,93,752/- and the complainant deposited 25% at the spot amounting to Rs.48,438/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,45,314/- was deposited within time with the office of Op No.1.  It is further alleged that the complainant also deposited the entire amount of the above-said plot with interest in the office of Op No.1 and after receiving the whole amount of above-said plot, the Op No.1 issued NOC of the plot and executed and registered the conveyance deed bearing No.2716/1 dt. 15.07.2011 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 issued memo No.4286 dt. 29.05.2013 to the complainant demanding the amount of Rs.1,29,000/- from the complainant as arrear of the plot.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that admittedly, the plot under question was allotted in favour of complainant vide allotment letter No.3972 dt. 06.10.2000 for a total consideration of Rs.1,93,752/- out of which Rs.19,376/- i.e. 10% of the allotment price was paid by the complainant along with application form for allotment of plot as earnest money and 15% of the allotment price i.e. Rs.29,062/- was deposited by the complainant after issuance of allotment letter; that the possession of plot under question was duly offered to the complainant vide memo No.2408 dt. 10.05.2002 and as such, the prescribed interest @ 15% per annum on the unpaid amount was started to be accrued from the same day; that the complainant never deposited the amount of due instalment within time and as such, the complainant is under obligation to pay the same along with prescribed interest and in the month of May, 2013 an arrear amount to the tune of Rs.1,29,000/- was standing due on account of arrears against the plot in the name of complainant which was rightly claimed by the answering Ops vide memo No.4286 dt. 29.05.2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C12 and closed evidence on 19.01.205.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to R13 and closed evidence on 12.02.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     From the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on the file and the arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for the parties, it is admitted case of the parties that the plot No.1285 in Sector 19(1), HUDA, Kaithal was allotted in favour of complainant Smt. Pushpa Rani vide allotment letter No.3972 dt. 06.10.2000 for a consideration of Rs.1,93,752/-.  The complainant deposited Rs.19,376/- i.e. 10% of the value with the application for allotment and Rs.29062/- i.e. 15% after the issuance of allotment letter and total amounting to Rs.48,438/- i.e. 25% of the total consideration.  The allotment letter has been placed on the file by both the parties as Ex.C1/Ex.R1.  As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the remaining 75% amount of Rs.1,45,314/- was to be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of allotment or in six equal annual instalment with interest @ 15% and the interest was payable from the date of offer of possession on unpaid amount.  The penal interest was also payable on the instalment amount not paid in due time.  Now the question is what is the date of offer of possession.  The complainant alleged that the date of offer of possession is 10.05.2012.  The complainant has not placed any document on the file to prove that the date of offer of possession is 10.05.2012.  Rather the complainant placed on the file Ex.C3, which is dated 10.05.2000 and vide this letter, the Ops had offered the possession.  It clearly indicates that the date of offer of possession is 10.05.2000 and not 10.05.2012.  The Ops have also placed on file the copy of this letter as Ex.R2.  Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the interest/penal interest as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter from 10.05.2000 on the unpaid instalments and the Ops had charged accordingly.  The Ops have placed on the file the allottee’s statement of account as Ex.R13, which is in detail.  The complainant has failed to prove that she had paid the entire amount in time and before the offer of possession and the Ops have charged excess amount than the actual due amount or there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

6.     Hence, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  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.

Dt.21.08.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

 

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.

 

                                                               

                                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jagmal Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Harisha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.