BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:07 of 2018.
Date of Instt.: 02.01.2018.
Date of Decision: 04.07.2018.
1.Sukhdev Singh son of Deshraj, 2. Naresh Kumar son of Ram Sawrup c/o Prince General Store, Shop No. 51, Hans Market, Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-13, HUDA Complex, Hisar.
- Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. Sita Ram Beniwal, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Dushyant Gera, counsel for OPs.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainants against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that vide allotment no. 12246 dated 11.10.1989 plot bearing no. 45-P situated in RCC Sector, Model Town, Fatehabad and measuring 27.84 square yards was allotted to one Shri Rampal for Rs. 2,70,000/-. It is further submitted that the abovesaid plot was purchased by the complainants with the permission of OPs vide letter dated 11.3.1992 from Shri Rampal and the said plot was re-allotted to the complainants on 8.9.1993 with the condition that the complainants shall pay 7th to 10th installments to the OPs as the remaining amount had already been paid by Shri Rampal.
2. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainants tried from pillar to post to get possession of the abovesaid plot on the spot vide letters dated 1.1.1997 and 27.11.2006 the complainants requested the OPs for delivering the possession but to no avail. Thereafter, in the month of March 2007 possession of the plot was given but the same was lesser in area. Therefore, on 19.3.2007 the complainants applied for alternative plot in lieu of the said allotted plot. However, the OPs refused to do anything for allotting an alternative plot. Therefore, a complaint no. 306 of 2007 was filed by the complainants against the OPs and the same was accepted with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and with directions to the OPs to pass a cancellation order of plot no. 45-P allotted to the complainants and issue a fresh allotment order to allot the alternative plot to the complainants out of the plots no. 56 and 35 of the same category and size which were lying un-allotted with the OPs.
3. It is further submitted that against the abovesaid order dated 10.3.2008 an appeal was preferred by the OPs in the Hon’ble State Commission, wherein the complainants were proceeded exparte and the appeal of the OPs was allowed and the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by this Forum was set aside.
4. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainants preferred a Revision Petition No. 772 of 2012 in the Hon’ble National Commission and in the Revision petition, the counsel for the OPs offered the allotment of plot no. SSB-35 in the same sector at the old rates and offer of the same was accepted by the complainants. On the basis of abovesaid offer and acceptance of the same by the complainants an order dated 26.8.2013 was passed by the Hon’ble National Commission and thereafter a final order dated 24.1.2014 was passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, keeping in view the statement made by both the parties.
5. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainants filed an execution application before this Forum for implementation of the order dated 24.1.2014. Thereafter, the OPs issued the offer of possession of alternative plot no. SSB-35 in RCC area Fatehabad in lieu of plot No. SSB-45 vide letter dated 17.5.2017. In this way, the plot which was purchased by the complainants on 8.9.1993, the possession of the same by an alternative plot was offered on 17.5.2017. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total amount paid by the complainants from the date of deposit of the same till order of possession of the alternative plot on 17.5.2017.
6. It is further submitted that the complainants made request to the OPs several times for making a payment of the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total amount paid by him from the date of deposit till the date of giving possession to the complainants. However, the OPs flatly refused to do so. The abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainants. The complainants have further prayed that the OPs may be directed for making payment of the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total amount paid by him till the order of possession of alternative plot on 17.5.2017. The complainants have also further prayed for awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges. Hence the present complaint.
7. On being served, the OPs appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi, estoppel, res-judicata and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
8. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the matter in dispute was decided between the parties to the present complaint by this Hon’ble Forum in complaint case No. 306 of 2007 vide order dated 10.3.2008 and as such the complainants have no right to file the present complaint on the same matter against the OPs. It is further submitted that an appeal was preferred by the OPs against the order dated 10.3.2008 and the abovesaid order was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 17.10.2011. Thereafter, the complainants preferred a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, against the order dated 17.10.2011. The Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to pass the following order on 26.8.2013:-
“On the last date of hearing, Counsel for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner cannot be allotted a plot of his choice and he will seek instructions from the respondent regarding allotment of an alternative plot of the same size in the same sector at old rates. Case was adjourned for today to enable the Counsel for the respondent to seek instructions. Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has now intimated that the plot No. SSB-35 in the same sector i.e. RC area Fatehabad is avilable for allotment to the petitioner at old rates. Copy of this letter was sent to the counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners and petitioner who is also present in person confirms that this plot is acceptable. Counsel for the respondent seeks some time to verify as to whether any amount is due from the petitioners before handing over the possession of the plot. Counsel for the respondent to verify as to whether any amount is due from the petitioners and if so, inform the Counsel for the petitioners/petitioners about the same before the next date of hearing so that this case can be mutually settled.”
9. Thereafter the Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to pass the following order on 24.1.2014:-
“Learned counsel appearing for HUDA states that as per her instructions, some nominal amount towards Administrative Charges may be payable by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly states that if any amount is due to be paid to HUDA at old rates, the same shall be paid before taking possession of the plot, details whereof have been mentioned in our order dated 26.8.2013. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for both the parties, no further orders are called for in this revision petition. The same stands disposed of accordingly.”
10. It is further submitted that on the basis of abovementioned orders the complainants had filed an execution application and the same was disposed of vide order dated 12.9.2017, wherein the following was observed by this Forum:-
“The orders dated 26.8.2013 and 24.1.2014 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission have attained finality and the same has to be implemented. Vide the aforesaid orders, the Hon’ble National Commission has not given any direction for payment of interest on the decree holders. So we are of the considered view that the decree holders are not entitled for any interest as claimed in the present application. Therefore, the prayer of the decree holders for grant of interest is hereby declined.”
11. It is further submitted that the complainants are not entitled to any amount of interest as the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 26.8.2013 and 24.1.2014 has not awarded any interest to the complainants. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the present complaint is devoid of any merits. The OPs have further prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
12. The learned counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Singh complainant as Annexure CW1/A along-with documents as Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-3 and Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence of the complainants. On the other hand, Shri Sumit Kumar Estate Officer tendered his affidavit as Exhibit RW1/A on behalf of OPs. The OPs also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
13. The learned counsel for the complainants in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further vehemently contended that the plot in question was allotted to the complainants on 8.9.1993 but possession of the same was offered to the complainants by an alternative plot on 17.5.2017. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to get interest on the total amount paid by him from the date of deposit till 17.5.2017 i.e. the date of order of possession of alternative plot. However, despite several requests made by the complainants, the OPs flatly refused to make the payment of the interest. It is further contended that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainants are entitled for interest as claimed in the present complaint.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and reiterated the submissions made in the written statement by the OPs. The learned counsel further contended that the issue for grant of interest at the rate of 18% on the deposited amount had already been decided by Hon’ble National Commission and as such the same issue cannot be raised by him by filing a fresh complaint and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
15. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is not disputed that a complaint no. 306 of 2007 was filed by the complainants against the OPs for allotment of plot in question. From perusal of the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by this Forum in the abovesaid complaint, it is also evident that vide the abovesaid complaint the complainants had also prayed for an interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Therefore, the issue of payment of 18% interest on the total amount deposited by the complainants was also in issue in complaint no. 306 of 2007. The abovesaid complaint was decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 24.1.2014 and the order dated 24.1.2014 has attained finality. Therefore, the present complaint on the issue which has already been decided is not maintainable and the same is barred by the principle of res-judicata.
16. Moreover, the revision petition in the abovesaid complaint was finally decided by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 24.1.2014 in terms of the statements made by both the parties. In the revision petition the learned counsel for the OPs had made a statement that plot no. SSB-35 in the same sector is available for allotment to the complainant/petitioner on old rates. In response to the abovesaid statement the learned counsel for complainants made a statement before Hon’ble National Commission that he is ready to accept the proposal of the OPs. The complainants did not raise any other demand before the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition and settled the matter with the OPs. Now therefore the present complaint for seeking interest on the deposited amount is not maintainable.
17. In view of the discussion as made above, the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:04.07.2018
(Raghbir Singh) President (M.K.Khurana) Distt. Consumer Dispute
Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad
