BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No. 257 of 2016.

 Date of Instt.:04.10 .2016.

Date of Decision:  21.11 .2017.

Hans Raj son of Shri Harhi Ram, resident of village Shahidawali, Post Office Khairati Khera,  District Fatehabad.

                                                                          ..Complainant

                                     Versus

1.Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector -13, HUDA Complex, Hisar.

2.Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.

         ..Respondent/OP

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

                            Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

Present:               Sh.C.B.Narang , Adv.for the complainant.

                            Sh.Sant Kumar, Adv. for the OPs.

                            The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the OPs with the averments that the Plot No.33, Sector-3 (Residential cum-commercial Area), Mandi  Township, Fatehabad was allotted to him by the OPs on 24.02.1988 in the open auction for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,89,000/-. The complainant deposited 10% of the total amount at the spot and thereafter deposited an amount of Rs.58,350/- on 23.03.1988 and an amount of Rs.1,11,568/- was deposited with the OPs on 08.06.1990. Thus the total amount of Rs,2,08,818/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs. It is further submitted that thereafter the above said plot was resumed by the OPs on 27.05.1996 without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the complainant. Therefore the complainant preferred an appeal against order dated 27.05.1996 before the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar. However the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the complainant challenged the order 27.05.1996 by filing civil writ petition No.16546 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. The said civil writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 17.09.2008 with the directions to the OPs to consider the case of the complainant for re-allotment of the plot on current price if the claim of the complainant is covered by a judgment  already passed by Hon’ble High Court on the similar issue.

2.               It is further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 17.09.2008 the said plot was re-allotted to the complainant by the OPs on the current price and the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,08,818/- which was lying deposited with the OPs was also adjusted with the total cost of the re-allotted plot in the statement for the year 2016. However the OPs did not  pay any interest on the said amount which remained deposited with the OPs. It is further prayed that the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum on the above said amount from the date of deposit till the date of adjustment in the year 2016. It is further submitted that the OPs got deposited an amount of Rs.14,26,181/- from him whereas an amount of Rs.13,75,000/- was to be deposited. Therefore the complainant is also entitled to get refund of Rs.51,181/- from the OPs. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of the OPs amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.               On notice, the OPs appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi, suppression of true and material fact etc. have been raised.

4.               On merits, it is submitted by the OPs that the said plot was resumed vide order dated 28.09.1996 by the OPs on account of non-payment of installments by the complainant. The plot was resumed by following the due procedure. It is further submitted that  since the plot in question has already been transferred in the name of Amir Chand on 20.11.2012 as such the complainant is not owner of the above said plot and does not fall within the definition of the consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint. It is also submitted that the OPs had refunded the amount of resumption value as per HUDA Policy on 29.12.2003 to the complainant vide a bank cheque. However the said cheque was not encashed by the complainant. Therefore they are not liable for making payment of interest on the amount of Rs.2,08,818/- to the complainant. Regarding excess payment of Rs.51281 made by the complainant to the OPs it is submitted that the said excess payment has already been adjusted in six installments.  Therefore the complainant is not entitled to receive the said amount. The OPs further prayed for dismissal of the complaint without any merits.

5.               In evidence the complainant submitted his affidavit as Annexure CW1 along-with documents as Annexures C2 to C15. On the other hand Sh.Sumit Kumar, HCS, Estate Officer, HUDA tendered affidavit as Annexure R1 on behalf of OPs.

6.               We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also examined the entire material placed on record of the case file. It is the case of the complainant that Plot No.33, Sector-3 (Residential cum-commercial Area), Mandi Township, Fatehabad was allotted to him by the OPs on 24.02.1988 in an open suction in a total sale consideration of Rs.3,89,000/-. Thereafter a total amount of Rs.2,08,818/- was deposited by the complainant on different dates up-to 08.06.1990 with the OPs. However, the said plot was resumed by the OPs vide order dated 27.05.1996. The order dated 27.05.1996 was challenged by the complainant by filing a C.W.P. No.16546 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said C.W.P. was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 17.09.2008 with the directions to OPs to reconsider the case of the complainant for re-allotment of said plot on current price if it is covered by the judgment already passed by the Hon’ble High Court in a identical case.  In view of the order 17.09.2008 the said plot was re-allotted to the complainant by the OPs on current price and the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,08,818/- which was lying deposited with the OPs was also adjusted with the total cost of the re-allotted plot in the statement for the year 2016. However no interest on the said amount of Rs.2,08,818/- which remained deposited with the OPs was paid or adjusted by the OPs. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get interest  @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit of the said amount till the date of adjustment in the year 2016. It is further the case of the complainant that the OPs got deposited an amount of Rs.14,26,181/- from him whereas an amount of Rs.13,75,000/- was to be deposited by him. Therefore he is entitled to get refund of Rs.51,181/- from the OPs.

6.               On the other hand the OPs have resisted the claim of the complainant mainly on the ground that since the plot in question has already been transferred on 20.11.2012 in the name of Amir Chand vide Annexure C-4 as such the  complainant is not owner of the plot and  does not  fall within the definition of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not entitled to file the present complaint. It is also the case of the OPs that the OPs had refunded the amount resumption value as per H.U.D.A Policy on 29.12.2003 to the complainant vide a cheque. But the said cheque was not encashed by the complainant.

7.               With regard to excess payment of Rs.51281/- received by the OPs it is the case of the OPs that the said excess payment has already been adjusted in six installments. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to receive the said payment.

8.               The contention of the OPs that the complainant is not owner of the plot in question as the same had been transferred in the name of Amir Chand in the year 2012 and therefore complainant is not consumer of the OPs and not entitled to file the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not tenable. The document Ex.C-11 dated 03.12.2015 issued by the OPs clearly reveals that the complainant is the joint owner of the plot in question.  Similarly in documents Ex.C-12  dated 10.08.2016 i.e. Allottee Account Statement issued by the OPs the complainant has been shown as joint owner of the plot alogwith Sh.Amir Chand. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant falls within the definition of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9.               The contention of the OPs that they are  not liable to make payment of interest to the complainant on the said amount of Rs.2,08,818/- is also not tenable. It is not disputed that the said amount remained deposited with the OPs from the date of payment till the date of adjustment. The same is also evident from Ex.C-13 i.e. letter dated 12.08.2014 vide which the OPs in reply to information sought under the R.T.I. Act has intimated that cheque No.361888 dated 29.12.2003 of Rs.1,50,036/- was cancelled on 31.01.2006 and the said amount was never transferred in the account of the complainant. In view of the above, since the aforesaid amount of the complainant remained deposited with the OPs and the OPs have also enjoyed the benefit of interest of this amount as such we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get interest on the said amount.

10.             Since the amount of Rs.51281/- deposited by the complainant in excess has already been adjusted by the OPs in six installments as such the complainant is not entitled go get refund of this amount. So the said claim of refund of Rs.51281/- of the complainant is not sustainable.

11.             In view of the aforesaid discussion the present complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to make a payment of simple interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of Rs.2,08,818/- from the date which the said amount was deposited till the date of adjustment of the same against the fresh allotment i.e. 03.04.2012. The claim of the complainant with regard to refund of Rs.51281/- on account of excess payment is hereby dismissed. The OPs are directed to make compliance of this order within a period of one month. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules.  File be consigned after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM.                                                   Dt.21.11.2017                                                        

                     (Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal)      (Raghbir Singh)

                         Member              Member              President                                                                                       

                                                                                  DCDRF, Fatehabad