Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 341.
Instituted on : 03.09.2020.
Decided on : 16.06.2022.
Harsh Vardhan age 29 years, son of Sh. Ran Singh. R/o House No.204, Gugod, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari Now R/o working as Assistant Manager with Karur Vyasa Bank-Rohtak Branch and now resident of H.No.836A/22, Jhang Colony, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- Estate Officer, Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran, HUDA office, Subhash Nagar, New Anaj Mandi, Rewari, Haryana-123110.
..…….……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.K.Luthra Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is working as Assistant Manager with Karur Vysya Bank Rohtak since 24.08.2017 and he had purchased property no.1203, Sector6, Dharuhera, district Rewari having area of 135 sq.mtr.(161.46 sq. yards) vide sale deed no.1200 dated 18.07.2018 registered with JSR-Dharuhera, after availing loan facility from Karur Vysya Bank. Later on re-allotment letter of the plot was issued by opposite party vide Memo No.Z0002/E0005/UE009/REALL/0000000056 dated 17.08.2018. It is further submitted that the original allotment was issued in the name of Sh. Amaranth vide memo no.223 dated 27.01.1994 and the possession of the said plot was given on 10.04.2020 and complainant purchased property from Sh. Amarnath. On 20.03.2019 complainant approached the opposite party with a request for approval of building plan and the complainant under compelling circumstances paid an amount of Rs.748307/- as extension fee as per the earlier policy-2013. The extension fee was charged upto 12 years as per schedule given in the policy of year 2013 and after 12 years the extension fee was liable to be doubled the amount, which was paid on the preceding year. However as per new policy dated 06.03.2019 vide memo no.A-6-UB-2019/43461-62, it was decided that after 12 years, further extension in the period of construction may be considered to be allowed on payment of 20% increase from 12th year to the next three years/5th block and so on instead of double the extension fee of every year to the allottees and new schedule for charging payment was given. But the new policy was not considered while charging extension fee inspite of the repeated requests and excess amount of Rs.729407/- was charged i.e. as per the earlier policy of charging double the extension fee of every year. Whereas clause no.3 of the new policy dated 06.03.2019 says that : “The other terms & conditions of the policy guidelines dated 12.04.2013 shall remain the same. This policy shall be made applicable retrospectively for all pending cases”. The complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.18900/- as per policy dated 06.03.2019 whereas he had been charged Rs.748307/-. Thus an amount of Rs.729407/- has been excessively charged from the complainant. The complainant made a representation vide registered letter dated 22.07.2020 to the opposite party but the same was rejected arbitrarily. The act of 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 refund the amount of Rs.729407/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant never followed the terms and conditions of the allotment letter before filing the instant complaint and also never approached to the competent authority as well as availed the proper remedy as provided under the HUDA Act. The plot no.1203, Sector-6, Part-1, Dharuhera was allotted to the original allottee Sh. Amar Nath s/o Sh. Shankar Lal in draw of lots and an allotment letter vide Memo No.223 dated 27.01.1994 had been issued to the allottee accordingly. Thereafter the said plot re-allotted in favour of the complainant vide re-allotment letter no.56 dated 17.08.2018. It is worthwhile to mention here that the possession certificate of the plot in the dispute was issued in favour of the original allottee Sh. Amar Nath vide memo no.0051 dated 07.05.2018 and thereafter conveyance deed of the same was also executed on dated 16.05.2018 and after re-allotment the complainant applied for issuance of occupation certificate to the office of answering opposite party and also deposited the amount in question as Extension Fee as per policy dated 12.03.2013 on his sweet will and consent. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of deposition of the amount in question new revised policy dated 06.03.2019 had come into the force but the same was not updated on the PPM system of the office of answering opposite parties. It is further worthwhile to mention here that after receiving the representation from the complainant for refund of the excess amount the entire matter has already been sent to IT wing of the Head Quarter for updating/decision on the same and as an when the same got updated/decided the next step regarding refund of excess amount if any be taken as per HSVP policy accordingly. Hence the complainant has no right to file the present complaint against the answering opposite parties. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.04.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.01.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. It is well proved from the perusal of the documents that the amount has been deposited with the department on 24.03.2019 whereas the Govt. policy has been issued on dated 06.03.2019. Respondent officials have wrongly received the amount from the complainant. Moreover complainant moved an application/representation before the respondent officials regarding the refund of the amount on 22.07.2020 which is Ex.C8 and the respondent department has rejected the application no.Z0002/E0005/UE009/2020/REFIM/000003 against refund application for plot No.1203/6/UE009, which is proved from the email Ex.C9 annexed with the online application status. On the other hand, as per the affidavit filed by opposite party placed on record as Ex.RW1/A, an amount of Rs.729407/- has already been refunded in the account of complainant through RTGS on dated 19.10.2021 as per HSVP Policy and the same is not denied by the complainant. But the alleged amount has been refunded by the opposite party on 19.10.2021 i.e. after more than 1½ years of commencement of new policy dated 06.03.2019 and only after filing the present complaint by the complainant. Hence there is grave deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.729000/- from 25.03.2019 to 19.10.2021 and also to pay Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay further interest on Rs.729000/- from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant.
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:
16.06.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member
