Haryana

StateCommission

A/133/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAKUMAT RAI SHANGARI - Opp.Party(s)

RAMAN GAUR

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      133 of 2015

Date of Institution:      09.02.2015

Date of Decision :       10.08.2015

 

1.     Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

2.     Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat, Sector-15, HUDA Complex, Sonepat, (Haryana).

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Shri Hakumat Rai Shangari s/o late Sh. Yog Raj, Resident of House No.258, Sector-21, Panchkula, presently residing at H.No.2992, Phase VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri B.S. Walia, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated November 20^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, in Consumer Complaint No.252 of 2013.  

2.      Hakumat Rai Shangari-Complainant (respondent herein) was allotted plot No.1346, admeasuring 300 square meters in Sector-23, Sonepat, vide allotment letter No.7391 dated August 7^th, 1991 (Exhibit C-1) issued by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)-Opposite Parties (appellants herein). The tentative price of the plot was Rs.2,30,100/-. He paid Rs.23,020/- as earnest money being 10% of the tentative price alongwith the application and further deposited 15% of the tentative price within 30 days from the date of issuing the allotment letter so as to make it 25% of the total consideration amount.  The balance price was to be paid in six annual instalments. The possession of the plot was to be offered to the complainant after completion of the development works and the complainant was to complete the construction within two years from the date of offer of possession, after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the HUDA.  The complainant paid the price of the plot to the HUDA, however, HUDA did not offer possession. The complainant filed complaint No.245 on September 11^th, 2000 before the District Forum, Panchkula and the same was contested by HUDA. During the pendency of said complaint, HUDA offered possession to the complainant vide letter dated June 23^rd, 2000.  Vide order dated September 19^th, 2001, said complaint was allowed issuing directions to HUDA as under:-

“a)     To grant 12% interest-compensation to the complainant on the amount deposited by him before 7.8.93 w.e.f. 7.8.93 till 23.6.2000 and on the amount deposited after 7.8.93 w.e.f. the date of deposit till offer of possession and

b)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as costs of proceedings.”

3.      HUDA complied with the above said order dated September 19^th, 2001.

4.      Thereafter, HUDA demanded penalty from the complainant for not raising construction over the plot within two years from the date of offer of possession. The complainant again filed complaint No.153 of 2007 which was decided vide order dated January 3^rd, 2008 directing the HUDA as under:-

“a)     To execute the conveyance deed of the plot in dispute keeping in mind that no interest or penalty is chargeable on the amount of delayed payment of instalments or enhancement prior to 23.6.2k and

b)      Also to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5000/-.”

5.      HUDA filed First Appeal No.1101 of 2008 before State Commission, Haryana, challenging the order of the District Forum. The order passed by District Forum was set aside vide order dated August 8^th, 2012 observing that District Forum, Panchkula has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

6.      Thereafter, the complainant filed the instant complaint No.252 of 2013 with the grievance that ‘No Due Certificate’ was not issued by HUDA despite having paid the entire price of the plot. On contest by HUDA, the District Forum allowed complaint vide impugned order dated November 20^th, 2014 observing as under:-

“In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the filing of compliant by the complainant vide complaint No.245 of 11.09.2000 before the District Forum, Panchkula.  In compliance of the above said order, the complainant has already been paid Rs.1,28,120/- vide cheque dated 7.8.2002. Further in compliance of order dated 19.9.2001 passed by the Forum, the complainant has already been compensated by the respondents for an amount of Rs.1,28,378/- which was disbursed to the complainant vide DD No.186464 dated 8.8.2002 and DD No.186477 dated 8.8.2002 for Rs.258/-.

                   Further in the present case, the respondents have claimed the penalty from the complainant on account of delay in construction.  In our view, when the litigation was going on in between the parties, how it was possible for the complainant to raise any construction over the plot in dispute.  So, it is held that the respondents have no right to charge any penalty from the complainant on account of delay in construction.  The respondents are also directed to issue the NOC to the complainant in respect of the plot in question.” 

7.      Aggrieved of the order dated November 20^th, 2014, HUDA is in appeal before this Commission.

8.        It is not disputed that the interest on the instalments amount would start from the date of offer of possession as stipulated in Clause 6 of the allotment letter is reproduced as under:-

“6.     The balance amount i.e. Rs.1,72,575/- of the above tentative price of the plot/builder can be paid in lump-sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in 6 annual instalments. The first installment will fall due after the expiry of one year of the date of issue of this letter. Balance instalments would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount. The interest shall however, accrue from the date of offer of possession. Interest @ 18% will be charged on the delayed payment.”

9.      It is also not in dispute that the possession was offered on 23.06.2000 as admitted by the complainant in para 6 of the complaint, which reads as under:-

“6.     That during the pendency of the case, the opposite parties offered the possession of the plot to the complainant on 23.6.2000”.

10.    As per clause 18 of the allotment letter, the complainant was required to complete the construction within two years from 23.06.2000, that is, the date of offer of possession. For ready reference, clause 18 is reproduced as under:-

“18.   You will have to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the competent authority in accordance with the regulations governing the erection of building. This time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer if he is satisfied that non-construction of the building was due to reasons beyond your control, otherwise this plot is liable to be resumed and the whole or part of money paid, if any, in respect of it forfeited in accordance with the provision of the said Act. You shall not erect any building or make any alternation/addition without prior permission of the Estate Officer. No fragmentation of any land or building shall be permitted”.

 11.   Since, the complainant failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period of two years, the HUDA issued notice regarding charging of ‘extension fee’.

12.    It has been settled by now that dispute of “composition fee” and “extension fee” cannot be challenged before the Consumer Fora.

13.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in HUDA Vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479, held as under:-

“4.     On the above finding, the National Commission had no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of “composition fee” and “extension fee” made by HUDA from the respondent complainant.

 5.      On the National Commission’s own reasoning and the interpretation of provisions of law with which we agree, this appeal deserves to be allowed.  In our opinion, the National Commission having held that it has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demands made by HUDA ought to have set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission setting aside the demand of “composition fee” and “extension fee”.  We, therefore, allow this appeal upholding the order of the National Commission.  We set aside the order of the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent of quashing the demand of “composition fee” of Rs.53,808 and “extension fee” of Rs.6300/-“.

14.    This Commission in Remand Appeal No.675 of 2013 “Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and another vs. Neelam Sharma” decided on March 19^th, 2014 followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Sunita’s case (Supra).

15.    In view of the above, since the dispute of “extension fee” could not have been entertained by Consumer Fora, it is held that the impugned order passed by the District Forum was not justified.

16.    Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

 

Announced 10.08.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL