Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 718.
Instituted on : 21.12.2017.
Decided on : 27.09.2021.
Amandeep, aged 45 years son of Sh. Sunder Singh, R/o H. No.622, Sector 15-A, Hisar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.
- Administrator HUDA, Rohtak.
- Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rishi Pal Deswal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Shakti Singh, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that a plot No.442 Sector-6, Rohtak measuring 224.70 Sq.Mts. was allotted to complainant vide office memo no.4593 dated 21.05.2012 on terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. As per the condition no.7, it has been mentioned that “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, the possession of plot is not offered within the prescribed period of 3 years from the date of allotment, HUDA will pay interest @ 9% 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 the further installments. The payment of the balance installments will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to you”. The development facilities had not been provided by the OPs in the area of the plot in question since the area of the plot in question is under dispute. No water supply, sewerage system, road and electricity facility have been provided to the plot in question till date. The area around the plot in question is under litigation and as such the possession of the plot cannot be given to the complainant. The respondent have also issued notice vide E.O. Letter no.9762 dated 26.10.2017 for demanding payment of Rs.4,00,600/- as enhanced amount. The demand of balance amount, enhanced amount and interest is absolutely wrong and incorrect and HUDA Policy since the possession of the plot in question has not been offered till date to the complainant. The complainant made request to allot an alternate plot in lieu of his original plot, to pay interest on the deposited amount till the date of offer of possession of fully developed alternate plot, not to demand the balance amount, not to charge any interest on balance amount and to refund the amount of interest already charged from the complainant but respondent refused to accept his request. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.1000000/- on account of mental agony, tension, Rs.22000/- as cost of litigation, to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the offer of possession of fully developed alternate plot, already charged interest on account of delay and not to charge interest on the balance amount and enhanced amount till the date of offer of possession of alternate plot.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that some of the area in Sector 6 is under litigation as the owner of the land acquired had filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and stay order has been passed by the Hon’ble High Court and due to that development work could not completed in some of the area. The OPs has sent requisition before the higher authorities for sanction of alternative plots in lieu of plots which comes within the area under litigation and the department would provide alternative plot as and when the sanction would be granted by the higher authorities. The respondent had issued the demand letter as per the terms and conditions and the complainant cannot escape his liability to pay the enhanced amount. It is also submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any interest and he cannot escape from his liability to pay the enhanced amount as per the terms and conditions. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/D and the evidence of the complainant was closed by the order dated 21.12.2018 of this Forum(now Commission). Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his additional evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW3/A and documents Ex.CW1/E to Ex.CW1/K and closed the same on dated 6.7.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R3 and closed the same on dated 4.6.2019.
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, the grievance of the complainant is that 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. But neither the development work has been completed in the area nor the possession of the plot in question has been offered till date to the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, “In case, the possession of plot is not offered within the prescribed period of 3 years from the date of allotment, HUDA will pay interest @ 9% on the amount deposited by the allottee after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession and the allottee will not be required to pay the further installments. The payment of the balance installments will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to you”. It is further submitted that the development facilities have not been provided by the OPs in the area of the plot in question since the area of the plot in question is under dispute. The area around the plot in question is under litigation and as such the possession of the plot cannot be given to the complainant. The respondent have also issued notice vide E.O. Letter no.9762 dated 26.10.2017 for demanding payment of Rs.4,00,600/- as enhanced amount. The demand of balance amount, enhanced amount and interest is absolutely wrong and incorrect as per HUDA Policy. The complainant has submitted detail of deposit of amount with the respondent in his affidavit tendered as Ex.CW3/B in his additional evidence on dated 06.07.2021, which is as follows:
(i) Rs.211900/- on 03.01.2010
(ii) Rs.214296/- dated 20.12.2011
(iii) Rs.327950/- dated 18.06.2012
(iv) Rs.125000/- dated 25.03.2015
(v) Rs.334026/-/- vide challan no.538409 dated 07.04.2021
(vi) Rs.269921/- vide challan no.539240 dated 09.04.2021
(vii) Rs.269921/- vide challan no.539247 dated 09.04.2021
(viii) Rs.269921/- vide challan no.539550 dated 09.04.2021
The total deposited amount comes to Rs.2022935/- Complainant had requested the opposite party to waive off the interest as per the HUDA policy and to allot an alternate plot to the complainant. The allotment letter Ex.CW1/D was issued on 21.05.2012 and as per the alleged terms and conditions, the possession of the plot was to be offered within 3 years i.e. upto 21.05.2015 but the same has not been offered to the complainant till date due to pending litigation before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. As such the complainant has sought alternate plot alongwith compensation. Ld. counsel has also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in II(2014)CPJ 495(NC) titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Sun Rise Engineering Corporation, II(2010)CPJ35(NC) titled as HUDA Vs. Nishtha Suhag, II(2010)CPJ113(NC) titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Raj Pathak & Anrs., IV(2013)CPJ365(NC) titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta and 1(2013)CPJ544(NC) titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Kamlesh Goel.
6. On the other hand, opposite parties has contended that some of the area in Sector 6 is under litigation as the owner of the land acquired had filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and stay order has been passed by the Hon’ble High Court and due to that development work could not completed in some of the area. The OPs has sent requisition before the higher authorities for sanction of alternative plots in lieu of plots which comes within the area under litigation and the department would provide alternative plot as and when the sanction would be granted by the higher authorities. The respondent had issued the demand letter as per the terms and conditions and the complainant cannot escape his liability to pay the enhanced amount. It is also submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any interest and he cannot escape from his liability to pay the enhanced amount as per the terms and conditions.
7. In the present case the allotment letter was issued on 21.05.2012 and till date neither the plot in question nor the alternate plot has been given to the complainant. If some of the land including the plot in question of the complainant is under litigation, opposite party was duty-bound to allot the alternative plot to the complainant. But the same has not been done by the opposite party till date i.e. after passing of 9 years from the date of allotment of plot. Hence the complainant should not suffer for not taking the decision by the higher authorities for sanction of alternate plot. As such, opposite parties are liable to give the possession of another plot in the adjoining area to the complainant. In this regard, law cited above by ld. counsel for the complainant are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Opposite parties are also liable to pay interest on the deposited amount to the complainant. In this regard, it is observed that as per schedule given in allotment letter Ex.CW1/D, the complainant had to pay the instalments in the year 2013 to 2018. He has deposited Rs.211900/- alongwith the application form, and thereafter deposited Rs.327950/- on 19.06.2012 as per receipt Ex.CW1/C after issuance of the allotment letter dated 21.05.2012 and deposited an amount of Rs.125000/- on 30.03.2015, the copy of receipt is at page no.3 of CW1/C. The complainant has claimed that he had deposited an amount of Rs.214296/- with the respondent on dated 20.12.2011 and has placed the deposit slip at page no.2 of Ex.CW1/C. This slip shows that an amount of Rs.214296/- has been deposited on account of Application no.16287. On the other hand, opposite party has not placed on record any document to prove the detail of instalment/amount paid by the complainant. As per allotment letter, the complainant had to pay the instalments regularly from the year 2013 to 2018 but he has not paid instalment for the year 2013, 2014 and 2015 regularly. Hence he is not entitled for the interest upon the amount which has not been deposited by the complainant against these instalments. In fact the complainant has deposited some amount on dated 07.04.2021, 09.04.2021 during the pendency of the complaint before this Commission. So he is not entitled for any interest upon this amount deposited during the pendency of complaint. He is only entitled for the interest on the amount deposited upto 30.03.2015 i.e. Rs.211900/- + Rs.327950/- + Rs.125000/- + Rs.214296/-i.e. total Rs.879146/-.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite parties shall deliver the possession of plot in question or an alternative plot of same size in the same sector or in adjoining sector to the complainant and shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited till 30.03.2015 i.e. Rs.879146/- from the date of order till the date of offer of possession of plot in question or alternate plot to the complainant. Complainant is not entitled for interest from the date of deposit as he himself has not deposited timely payment as described in the allotment letter. It is further directed that opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to pay further instalments and other charges, if any, as per agreement after receiving the actual physical possession.
9. 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:
27.09.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
