Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 682
Instituted on : 22.11.2021
Decided on : 26.07.2024
Sushila Malik age 64 years, w/o Sh. Attar Singh Malik R/o H.No.706/22, Sonipat Road, District Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- H.S.V.P. Earlier known as “Haryana Urban Development Authority” (HUDA) through its Estate Office, Sector-3, Rohtak, District Rohtak.
- H.S.V.P. Bahadurgarh Earlier known as “Haryana Urban Development Authority” (HUDA) through its Estate Office, Sector-9, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.K.Luthra,Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that she had purchased a plot no.688-P, in Sector-9, Part B, Jhajjar in the year 2011 for residential purpose. Complainant had paid all the instalments of her plot well in time but the opposite parties failed to issue/offer of possession till date nor any physical possession was given at the spot. After login his account on HUDA website she came to know that opposite parties have given possession on papers on 16.04.2015 but no intimation in this regard was supplied or any offer of possession was given to the complainant after many requests. Lastly complainant has sent a letter dated 29.07.2016 in this regard but of no use. On 03.04.2017 opposite parties issued a letter demanding for Pan Number for payment of interest on delayed possession. The same was provided to them, but income tax on interest was not credited in the complainants’ Pan number. There was no development such as construction of roads, schools, hospitals, lightning, sewerage system etc. at the time of alleged offer of possession dated 16.04.2015. On 18th February 2018 opposite parties have demanded enhanced amount of compensation Rs.244350/- which was to be deposited by19.03.2018 and thereafter the complainant shall pay interest @ 15% p.a. on said amount till its payments. On 28.03.2018 complainant paid the said amount alongwithupto date interest around Rs.245500/-. In the month of May 2018 opposite party has launched a scheme on 15.05.2018 for a period of two months and offered 40% discount on demanded amount in “one time settlement scheme”. Complainant applied for the same through letter dated 22.06.2018 i.e. within time but the opposite parties declined the request of complainant on the ground that the scheme was validw.e.f. 15.05.2018 to 16.07.2018, which is illegal. Opposite parties have wrongly calculated the enhancement amount and not ready to provide its calculation sheet. Opposite parties have failed to offer possession of plot to the complainant till date on the ground that the work is under progress. Opposite parties demanded full amount from the complainant and are not ready to pay the penalty of delayed possession. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to return the excess amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties as per OTSS scheme i.e. Rs.99000/-(Rs.97740/- principal + Rs.1260/- interest) alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realisation or in alternate, to charge actual enhanced amount on 450 sq. mt. plot as enhanced by the session Court/High Court etc.(as the case may be) till order of court. If there is delay in demand of enhanced amount by the opposite parties then complainant is not liable to pay interest on delayed period, to offer possession of said plot after completion of work i.e. road, lightning, water supply sewerage system, parks, school, hospital, security etc. and pay interest on delayed period on deposited amount from 28.07.2014 @ 15% p.a. to the complainant.Opposite parties be further directed to pay an amount of Rs.80000/- on account of mental agony & harassment, Rs.25000/- as litigation expensesand to issue offer of possession at the spot to the complainant. It is further prayed that if they fail then a plot in sector-6, HUDA Rohtak of same size and location be given to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that initially the plot no.688P Sector-9 Jhajjar was allottedthe complainant vide office memo No.Z0005/E0003/UE031/REALL/0000000012 dated 13.10.2011. The offer of possession of plot was offered to the complainant on dated 16.04.2015 after receiving the development reports from the office of Sub-Divisional Engineer, HSVP Sub-Division, Jhajjar vide his office Endst.no.91 dated 30.03.2015 and the Executive Engineer, HSVP, Electrical Division, Rohtak office memo no.1972 dated 05.03.2015. The basic amenities such as water supply, sewerage, Road and electrification works were completed at site. Further the physical possession/possession certificate was approved and issued as per application of the complainant/allottee. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is further submitted that the scheme under the head ‘One Time Settlement Scheme” was launched onHSVP online portal for the period w.e.f. 15.05.2018 to 16.07.2018 for thoseallottes who had not deposited enhancement cost. But the complainant had already deposited the amount of enhancement on dated 27.03.2018 so she was not eligible for the benefit of rebate under the scheme of OTSS and she was intimated vide office memo no.2306 dated 28.08.2018. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C24 and closed his evidence on 20.03.2024. However, documents tendered by ld. Counsel for the complainant from Ex.C15 to Ex.C20 are hereby de-exhibited vide order dated 23.07.2024 of this Commission being submitted by the Local Commission. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on 16.08.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per complainant, any physical possession was not given at the spot by the opposite parties. She came to know from the website of opposite parties that they have given possession on papers on 16.04.2015 whereas no intimation in this regard was supplied to the complainant. It is further submitted that OTSS benefit was not given to the complainant. In this regard it is observed that scheme under the head ‘One Time Settlement Scheme” was launched by the Govt. for the period w.e.f. 15.05.2018 to 16.07.2018 for those allottees who had not deposited enhancement cost. But the complainant had already deposited the amount of enhancement on dated 27.03.2018. So after depositing the said amount without any protest, the same cannot be considered at this stage. Hence the claim under OTSS is not considerable. The other plea taken by the complainant is that there was no development such as construction of roads, schools, hospitals, lightning, sewerage system etc. at the time of alleged offer of possession dated 16.04.2015. In this regard we have perused the LC report placed on record by the Local Commission on dated 06.11.2023. As per this report under the head ‘Exact Position of the plot’ it is mentioned that : “On inquiry from the persons/family members residing over the Plot No.688-P, Sector-9, Part B, Jhajjar it came to my knowledge that disputed plot and area nearby is occupied by unauthorised persons and they constructed houses there made on cemented floor, brick walls and covered with polythene sheets and residing with their family from last 10 years and some of them are residing from last 6 to 8 years. There are about 10-12 huts in the said plot and adjacent plots are also occupied by the unauthorised persons by putting similar huts. The entire area of 1 kanal plots from 676P to 688P and back side plots, park in front of these and some portion of green belt are occupied by the similar persons by construction of 100-125 huts. There are numbers of trees on the plots, parks, road, green belt and surrounding area of sector having dense forest upto 60-80 Mts. In radius, some of trees are thorny and are of the height of 8-15 feet making the entry in the said plot is a difficult task. It is worth mentioning that one can’t read the site of its own as there is no indication in the nature of any board showing the location of the Sector-9 as well as of the plot in the sector. There are no board with arrow mark on the main roads showing the existence of Sector-9”. The Local Commissionhas placed on record 28 photographs Ex.C20 which prove the contents ofhis report to be true. As per memo of appearance of JE HSVP Bahadurgarhattached with the LC report, he also visited with the Local Commission at the spot, prepared memo and placed on record photographs. Perusal of photographs as well as the LC report shows that there are illegal possession at the plot of the complainant and no basic amenities are provided at the spot. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to get vacate/clear the unauthorised possession from the plot of the complainant and to hand over the actual physical possession of the plot to the complainant after completing the basic amenities such as construction of roads, schools, hospitals, parks, lightning, sewerage system etc. Opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant from dated 14.10.2014 till the date of actual physical possession as the complainant could not utilise/enjoy the property after making the full payment. The plea of complainant of giving alternate plot in Rohtak is not considerable. Opposite party No.2is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.07.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
