Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 207
Instituted on : 12.03.2021
Decided on : 12.10.2022.
Shyam Sunder Kalra age-61 yrs. S/o Sh. Devi Dutta Ram Kalra R/o H.No. 650A/30, Adarsh Nagar, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Faridabad (Through its Estate Officer)
- Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Faridabad.
- Chief Administrator, H.S.V.P.(Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran), Sector-6, Panchkula.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Shakti Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that in the year 2010 the opposite parties had made an advertisements and requisitioned applications from the applicants for allotment of plots in HUDA(now HSVP). The complainant also applied for the plot and a residential plot no. 2966 was allotted to the complainant in Sector 62 at Urban Estate Faridabad vide allotment letter Memo No. A-62/30252 dated 09.09.2010. As per clause 7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of 3 years from the date of allotment after completion of development work in the area. The letter Memo No. A-62/30252 dated 09.09.2010 was only allotment letter and that offer of possession of the plot was not made in the above letter and the possession of the plot was yet to be offered within 3 years of the date of allotment of the plot after completion of development work in the sector. Opposite parties did not deliver any letter to the complainant regarding offer of possession and when the complainant visited the plot no. 62 allotted to him, he was surprised to see that a huge old ficus tree(Pipal) was there in the mid of the plot and the plot was not in a position to raise any construction over it due to the presence of the alleged tree. It is pertinent to mention here that opposite parties were required to allot the plot after completion of all the development work and after removal of the said tree from the mid of the plot. On written request of complainant, the opposite parties removed the said tree from the allotted plot. Thereafter opposite party no. 1 vide letter No. 8003 dated 09.08.2016 offered the possession of the plot and intimated the complainant that the said tree has been removed from the plot and he can take the possession of the plot as per Clause 26 of the allotment letter. Hence offer of the possession of the plot was actually offered by them on 09.08.2016 vide letter no. 8003 dated 09.08.2016. Opposite parties had wrongly charged an amount of Rs.3,72,000/- as interest on account of possession whereas the possession was actually offered on 09.08.2016. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.3,72,000/-wrongly charged as interest from the complainant on account of possession and to consider the date of offer of possession as 09.08.2016. Opposite party No. 1 refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant vide letter No. 11939 dated 17.11.2016. Thereafter, the complainant also made repeated requests through CM Window and finally he filed an appeal/representation dated 14.03.2017 to the opposite party no. 2 which was disposed off by the opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 24.01.2018 and the opposite party No. 1 was directed to consider the representation of the complainant and to pass a speaking order as per HUDA policy within one month from the date of order. But despite his repeated requests and representation the alleged amount was not refunded to the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.3,72,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till its realization, to pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties through registered post. Statutory period of 30 days has been elapsed. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.10.2021 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. Thereafter ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered document Ex. C-10 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.03.2022. Learned counsel for the complainant also tendered documents Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-18 on 13.06.2022 and documents Ex. C-19 to Ex. C-23 on 04.10.2022 in his additional evidence and close the same on 04.10.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case contention of the complainant is that ‘possession offer interest’ at page no.4 of the allotment letter Ex.C1 has been wrongly charged from the complainant. In fact the actual physical possession has been handed over to the complainant vide letter dated 09.08.2016. In fact through this letter it has been informed to the complainant that Ficus(Peepal) tree has been removed from the plot of the complainant and now he can get the possession of the plot as per condition no.26 of the allotment letter. We have minutely perused the allotment letter Ex.C1 and condition no.7 of which is as under :
“The possession of the plot will be offered within a period of 3 years from the date of allotment after completion of development work in the area. In case possession of the plot is not offered within the prescribed period of 3 years from the date of allotment, HUDA will pay interest @ of 9% (or as may be fixed by Authority from time to time) on the amount deposited by you after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession and you will not be required to pay further installments. The payment of balance installments will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to you.”
And as per condition no.26 of the same allotment letter, :
“The possession of the site is hereby offered. You may take possession of the site on any working Monday”.
Meaning thereby at the time of allotment letter dated 09.09.2010, the offer of the possession has been offered by the respondent to the complainant. The perusal of Ex.C2 itself shows that Ficus(Peepal) tree was removed by the opposite party in the year 2016 and the complainant was intimated vide letter dated 09.08.2016 . So in our opinion the ‘possession offer interest’ has been wrongly charged from the complainant which has been mentioned in condition no.27 of the allotment letter of plot no.2966 of Sector 62, Faridabad. It has been further submitted by the complainant that delayed payment interest had already been deposited by the complainant and he has deposited the total amount of Rs.2433335/- with the respondent. As per our opinion the respondent are not entitled for “Possession offer interest” amount because they have belatedly offered the possession after clearing the plot from the Ficus(Peepal) tree in the year 2016. As such complainant is entitled for refund of the amount charged on account of ‘possession offer interest’. As per document Ex.C1, at page no.4, the ‘possession offer interest’ is mentioned for the period of 09.11.2011 to 09.09.2016 and after calculating the same, it comes to Rs.434685/-. As such complainant is entitled for the alleged amount.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the alleged amount of Rs.434685/-(Rupees four lac thirty four thousand six hundred and eighty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.03.2021 till its realization, 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:
12.10.2022
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
