STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 16.03.2018
Date of final hearing: 17.09.2024
Date of pronouncement: 03.12.2024
First Appeal No.388 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator.
2. Estate Officer, Haryana Development Authority, Hisar.
....Appellants
Versus
Hans Raj S/o Sh. Harhi Ram, R/o Village Shahidawali, Post Office Khairati Khera, District Fatehabad. …..Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member
Argued by:- Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for appellants.
Mr. Ashwani Verma, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 75 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay which constitute sufficient cause as per Section 5 of Limitation Act.
2. Challenge in this Appeal No.388 of 2018 filed by appellant has been invited to legality of order dated 21.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Fatehabad (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.257 of 2016, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.
3. Factual matrix: Plot No.33, Sector-3 (Residential cum-commercial Area), Mandi Township at Fatehabad had been allotted to complainant by OPs/appellants on 24.02.1988 in ‘open auction’ for Rs.3,89,000/-. Complainant deposited 10% of total amount at spot and thereafter deposited Rs.58,350/- on 23.03.1988; Rs.1,11,568/- on 08.06.1990. Thus, total amount of Rs,2,08,818/- was deposited by complainant with OPs. Subject plot was resumed by OPs on 27.05.1996 without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to him and he preferred appeal against order dated 27.05.1996 before Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority-Hisar which was dismissed. He challenged order 27.05.1996 by filing Civil Writ Petition No.16546 of 2008 before Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh which was disposed of on 17.09.2008 with directions to OPs to consider his case for re-allotment of plot on current price, if his claim is covered by judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on similar issue. In compliance of order dated 17.09.2008; plot was re-allotted to him by OPs on current price and Rs.2,08,818/- lying deposited with OPs, was adjusted against cost of re-allotted plot. However, OPs did not pay interest on said amount which remained deposited with it. Complainant has asserted that he is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on above said amount (Rs.2,08,818/-) from date of deposit till date of adjustment in year 2016. As per plea; OPs got deposited Rs.14,26,181/- from him whereas Rs.13,75,000/- was required to be deposited. Therefore, complainant is also entitled to refund of Rs.51,181/- from OPs. On these allegations, by pleading deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in rendering service to complainant; complaint has been filed.
4. OPs/appellants raised contest. In its defense; various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi, suppression of true and material fact etc. have been raised. On merits, it is submitted that subject plot was resumed by following the due procedure, vide order dated 28.09.1996 on account of non-payment of installments by complainant. As per plea; since subject plot has already been transferred in the name of Amir Chand on 20.11.2012 so complainant is not its owner and he does not fall within definition of consumer. OPs had refunded amount of resumption value as per HUDA’s Policy on 29.12.2003 to complainant vide bank cheque. However, said cheque was not encashed by him. Therefore, they are not liable for paying interest on amount of Rs.2,08,818/- to him. Regarding excess payment of Rs.51,281/- made by complainant to OPs; it is pleaded that excess payment has already been adjusted in six instalments and as such complainant is not entitled to receive this amount.
5. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Fatehabad has allowed the complaint vide order dated 21.11.2017 and directed OPs to pay simple interest @8% p.a. on amount of Rs.2,08,818/- from the date which said amount was deposited till the date of adjustment of the same against the fresh allotment i.e. 03.04.2012. Complainant’s claim with regard to refund of Rs.51,281/- on account of excess payment has been declined.
7. Feeling aggrieved; OPs have filed this appeal. Record of complaint case too has been perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for parties. Arguments of both parties have been heard.
8. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that impugned order dated 21.11.2017 is wrong, illegal and against the facts and evidence so available in the case. It is urged that OPs/appellants are not liable to make payment of any interest on amount of Rs.2,08,818/- for the reason that said amount was already adjusted towards the cost of plot when it was re-allotted to complainant on the force of order dated 17.09.2008 passed by Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.16546 of 2008.
9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent has urged that all relevant facets of the case have been appropriately analyzed and adjudicated by learned District Consumer Commission while allowing complaint through impugned order dated 21.11.2017.
10. Admittedly, subject plot allotted to complainant earlier was resumed by OPs/appellants on 27.05.1996. Complainant challenged resumption by filing administrative appeal which was dismissed. Consequentially, he filed CWP No. 16546 of 2008 in Hon’ble High Court. The said writ Petition was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 17.09.2008. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that: if petitioner is covered by judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as MD, HSIDC and others Vs. Hari Om Enterprises and others JT 2008 (8) SC 184 then plot be re-allotted to him on current price, including other outstanding dues. Accordingly, as per admitted case; plot was again allotted to complainant at market price of Rs.22,000/- per sq. yard on 03.04.2012 and full amount of Rs.2,08,818/- deposited by complainant was adjusted against fresh allotment. Since, fresh allotment has been made to complainant and amount earlier paid by him (Rs.2,08,818/-) has been adjusted against cost of plot as per current price (Rs.22,000/- per sq. yard) so existing on 03.04.2012, therefore the grievance of the complainant stood comprehensively redressed then and there. Bona-fides of appellants are ex-facie established when it has refunded Rs.1,50,036/- to complainant vide cheque No. 361888 dated 29.12.2003, consequent to resumption of plot. If, complainant has chosen not to encash this cheque then no deficiency in service can be attributed to the appellants. Learned District Consumer Commission has erred in law in not analyzing the controversy on above projected facts and there is fallacy on its part while awarding 8% interest p.a. to complainant on amount of Rs.2,08,818/- from the date said amount was deposited till 03.04.2012, when re-allotment was made. This Commission observes that consequences flowing from order dated 21.11.2017 of learned District Consumer Commission would unjustly enrich the complainant for no reason. This being so; impugned order dated 21.11.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Fatehabad cannot be allowed to hold its light of day anymore. It is accordingly set aside by allowing present appeal. Complainant is non-suited and complaint filed by him is dismissed.
11. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellants at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
12. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 05th December, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
