Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 108
Instituted on : 09.02.2022
Decided on : 02.08.2023
Dr. Anumeha Narwal W/o Sh. Neeraj Malik R/o 18A/10, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak-124001.
......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran through its Chief Administrator, Plot No. C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- Estate Officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector-3, Rohtak.
...........…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. N.K.Singhal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Manoj Kumar Munjal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that she is a Dentist with M.D.S in Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge and was eligible for allotment of Clinic Site in the Urban Estates of the opposite parties. She had applied for allotment of a commercial plot for the purpose of her employment as Doctor to establish her Clinic in Sector-4 Extension at Rohtak by way of e-auction. On 05-10-2021, the opposite party had issued e-auction notice for allotment of Clinic Site No.2 (18x14-252) Sector-4 Extension at Rohtak and e-auction was scheduled to be held on 10-10-2021. In the layout plan of Sector-4 displayed near the site by the opposite parties, the said site was shown as a corner site and the base price of the site was kept at Rs. 40,32,000/-. There is provision of parking in front of this site in the layout plan. The complainant got herself registered for e-auction on the web portal provided by the opposite party for e-auction after depositing the registration fee of Rs.1,000/- vide receipt dated 07-10-2021. The complainant further deposited an amount of Rs.2,01,600/- as earnest money with the opposite parties vide payment receipt dated 07.10.2021. The complainant participated in the bid and was the highest bidder with bid amount of Rs.1,77,92,000/- in the e-auction held on 10-10-2021. Thereafter, she deposited an amount of Rs. 15,77,600/- vide payment receipt dated 11-10-2021 as balance amount of the 10% of the bid amount. Complainant visited the Rohtak office of opposite party for enquiring about the allotment letter and further proceedings where she came to know that there is some confusion regarding location of the site for which she had placed her bids as the layout plan near the site was at variance with the layout plan in the records of the opposite parties. It was not clarified as to which is the final approved layout plan and what is the final exact location of site for which bids were placed by the complainant. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of the opposite parties vide her letter dated 18-10-2021 and requested for resolution of the grievance to allocate her the corner site for which she had placed her bids. But no response was received to the said letter from the opposite parties. The complainant was told verbally that the site has been shifted by opposite parties to the back side but nothing was provided in writing. The complainant sent letters to the opposite parties but still no solution to the grievance was provided by the opposite parties. Instead of responding to the letters of the complainant, the opposite parties announced e-auction of the corner plot vide notice dated 14-11-2021 and e-auction was scheduled for 17-11-2021. In the said notice, the site was mentioned as Clinic Site 1 with dimensions as (25x20). However, the opposite parties changed the said e-auction notice and in the changed notice the site was mentioned as Clinic Site I with dimensions as (25x10). The complainant was constrained to approach the Hon'ble High Court vide CWP No. 23334 of 2021 against the e-auction scheduled for 17-11-2021. However, the said e-auction was rescheduled for 20-11-2021 and complainant participated in the said e-auction and as she was ultimately the highest bidder of the site put to e-auction on 20-11-2021 she withdrew the said Civil Writ Petition on 25-11-2021.Vide letter dated 25-11-2021, the complainant requested for cancellation of her bid dated 10-10-2021 and for refund of the amount of Rs.17,79,200/- deposited by her. By that time the highest bid of the complainant dated 10-10-2021 had not been accepted as final by the opposite parties and Letter of Intent confirming the offer for allotment of the said site had not yet been issued to the complainant. The complainant followed up her request and requested for refund of the amount of Rs. 17,79,200/- vide legal notice dated 12-12-2021 but the opposite parties did not respond. Instead, the opposite parties issued Letter of Intent for the said plot put to e-auction vide letter dated 29-12- 2021 in contravention of the rules and regulations applicable on the opposite parties. The present matter is governed by the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and rules and regulations framed thereunder. Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 have been framed which are applicable on the opposite party. As per regulation 5(5), the complainant is entitled to the refund of full amount of earnest money deposited by him as she had refused the allotment even before the letter of intent was issued to the complainant. For ready reference the said regulation is reproduced as under:-
"5(5). The applicant to whom the land/building has been allotted shall communicate his acceptance or refusal in writing within 30 days of the date of allotment, by registered post to the Estate Officer. In case of acceptance, the letter shall be accompanied by such amount as intimated to him in the allotment letter. In case of refusal, he shall be entitled to the refund of the money tendered with the application. In case he fails to either accept or refuse within the stipulated period, allotment shall be deemed to be cancelled and the deposit made under sub regulation (2) may be forfeited to the Authority and the applicant shall have no claim for damage."
In the letter dated 29-12-2021, it has been mentioned that the site of e-auction held on 10-10-2021 is "intended to be offered" to the complainant on consideration of her bid but there is no mention of the fact that the complainant has already requested for the cancellation of bid and refund of amount deposited by her. But the amount has not been refunded to the complainant. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund an amount of Rs.17,79,200/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of payment i.e. 11.10.2021 till realization, also to pay an appropriate amount towards compensation and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their reply submitting therein that the opposite parties were selling the residential as well commercial properties through e-auction. The site in question i.e. clinic-II (revised demarcation plan dated 06-05-2009 situated in Sector-4 Extn. on 12 meter road. The complainant participated in e-auction vide auction ID 3402 dated 10-02-2021 and succeeded in the bid being highest bidder for Rs.1,77,92,000/-. The claim of the complainant regarding the change in location of the site clinic-II by HSVP after bid is baseless as the map/site plan she relied is not authentic as the same was got revised by the competent authority vide dated 06-05-2009. For the authentic site plan she should have visited the Estate Office, Rohtak before participating in e-auction but she never visited the office of opposite parties. The clinic site I which was put on auction on 20-11-2021 is a different site from clinic site II for which the complainant had participated, it is very much clear from the demarcation plan as well from e-Brochure available on HSPV Portal. It is wrong and hence denied that the said site was shown as corner site in the layout plan Sector-4 displayed near the site by the opposite parties and the base price was kept at Rs.40,32,000/-. The copy of alleged lay out plan has not been supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties. It is wrong and denied that the compliant visited the Rohtak office of opposite party for enquiring about the allotment letter and further proceedings where she came to know that there is some confusion regarding location of the site for which she had placed her bids. It is also wrong and denied that the opposite parties did not respond to any of the letter sent by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has already filed a CWP No.23334 of 2021 in the Hon’ble High Court and which was withdrawn by the complainant on dated 25-11-2021 then question of not responding to the alleged notices of the complainant by the respondent does not arise at all. After bid nothing has been revised and the allegations in this regard are baseless. The clinic Site 1 which was put on auction is different site. The complainant has not submitted her bids for corner plot. It is submitted that in her statement of withdrawal before the Hon’ble High Court she has not stated that she was ultimately highest bidder of the site put to e-auction on 20-11- 2021. It is wrong to say that the letter of intent dated 29-12-2021 is in contravention of the rules and regulations applicable on the opposite parties. The bid for the site/building no. 2 in sector-4 EXT, Urban Estate, Rohtak auctioned on "as is where is" basis on dated 10-10-2021. The provisions of the HUDA Act 1977 and rules and regulations framed there under as stated by the complainant are not applicable in the present matter. The provisions of regulation 5(5) as mentioned by the complainant are not applicable in the present matter. The complainant has participated in the bid process which was held in accordance with law. It is wrong to say that the opposite parties had shifted the location of the site as alleged by the complainant. There is no provision of refunding the bid money once deposited and thereafter took participation in the e-auction process and thereafter even the letter of intent (LOI) has already been issued. The complainant was required to deposit the balance amount out of Rs.1,77,92,000/- as per schedule mentioned therein. It is submitted that as per LOI the complainant was required to deposit another 15% of the quoted bid amount in order to make the 25% price of the said site/plot within a period of 30 days from the date of dispatch of Letter of Intent (LOI) on the registered email ID of the complainant/successful bidder. In case of failure to deposit the said amount within the above specified period, the LOI shall stand automatically withdrawn without any further notice in this behalf and the 10% of the bid amount deposited by the complainant shall stand forfeited to the Pradhikaran against which the complaint shall have no claim for allotment of site/plot/building or damages or interest. It is denied that the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of rs.1779200/- alongwith interest. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C24 and has closed his evidence on dated 17.01.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R15 and closed his evidence on 26.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through written submissions filed by the complainant as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. It has been well established from the perusal of documents Ex.R2, Ex.R3 & Ex.R4 that initially the site of clinic 2 is surrounded as under:- In the north Clinic-1, south side 12 meter road, east side attached with the parking and thereafter 24 meter road and on the west side the site off INST-II and this demarcations has been proved from the perusal of Ex.R2 & Ex.R3. An another demarcation has also been placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R4. In this site plan and the demarcation of this clinic II is as under:- East side clinic-1, West side 8 marla plot and north side approval site for DBO having area 512 sq. meter and on the south side 12 meter road. After perusal of these 3 documents we came into the conclusion that initially the site of clinic-2 was more valuable and more spacious for parking and was easily approachable for the patient and their attendants because the clinic is adjacent to the parking and 24 meter road and tentative to corner plot but in Ex.R4 the clinic have only 12 meter road in his South side and not attached with the parking. If the hospital is attached with the parking space the patient and their attendants can easily park their vehicles and they can easily use the same. Hence from the documents placed on record by both the parties it is proved that opposite parties have changed the location of clinic site and the clinic site 2 now lies just next of clinic site 1 on the 12 meter road having no provision of parking with it. Moreover, this unilateral variance has never been communicated to the complainant at any stage by the opposite party. As such the complainant has refused to allocation of the varied clinic site 2. Hence the complainant has requested for cancellation of bid and to refund the amount of Rs.1779200/- deposited by her with the opposite parties. It is also observed that the complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that the respondent no.1 displayed the lay out plan near the site in which the clinic site no.2 is shown as a corner site but no specific answer in this regard has been given by the opposite parties. Moreover it has been submitted by the opposite parties that for the authentic site plan the complainant should have visited the Estate Office, Rohtak before participating in e-auction but she never visited the office of opposite parties. In this regard it is observed that it is not possible for a purchaser/consumer that when a lay out plan has been displayed by the HSVP on the site, then the same should be cross checked by the purchaser from the office of the opposite parties as she cannot presume that there would be any difference between the layout plan displayed near the site and the actual layout plan. As such the act of opposite parties of changing the site without any information to the complainant is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite parties are liable to refund the alleged amount to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1779200/-(Rupees seventeen lac seventy nine thousand and two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 11.10.2021 till its realisation and also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten 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.
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:
02.08.2023.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
