Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 556.
Instituted on : 13.10.2016.
Decided on : 05.09.2018.
Kalu Rajak son of Hira Lal Rajak resident of KGI-507,Vikaspuri, New Delkhi. M-08406002092.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rothak.
- Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rohtak.
- Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.
- A.D.C., Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rohtak.
- Programer Officer, Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Parmod Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.K.Luthra, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.118400/- with the respondents for the plot no.62SP Size 6 marla Sector-5, Rohtak. That complainant filled this plot under SC Category. That at the time of scrutiny of documents, OPs never raised any objection and after draw of the said plot, OPs have raised objection that complainant is not entitled for this plot as he is not resident of Haryana State. That complainant requested the OPs to return the said amount but the OPs neither returned the amount nor allotted the said plot to the complainant, which is illegal, unjust and against the principle of natural justice. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to return the amount of Rs.118400/- alongwith interest, besides compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that as per instructions of the Department of HUDA, after draw of lots successful candidates shall be required to submit requisite proof/documents/affidavits etc. regarding their eligibility to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak and if the candidate fails to submit the requisite document within the prescribed period or is found to has concealed facts/given wrong information, then in that case allotment letter shall not be issued and the earnest money deposit(EMD) shall be forfeited. That in the present case also, the complainant failed to prove that he is a domicile of Haryana. So as per terms and conditions of the department, the application of the complainant has been cancelled on 21.10.2013 and forfeited the earnest money. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 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 to Ex.CW21 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 22.02.2018 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and the evidence of OPs was closed by the order dated 28.08.2018 of this Forum.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint, the complainant has placed on record Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW21. He himself admits that an amount of Rs.184000/- has been deposited against the plot of 6 marlas under the reserved category(SCCAS). It was within the knowledge of complainant that he is not the resident of Haryana and he has a domicile of West Bengal. This fact has been disclosed by him before the Estate Officer regarding the enquiry conducted by the respondent officials. The complainant himself placed on record a document Ex.CW6 which clearly shows that the respondent officials wrote many letters to the complainant to submit the domicile of Haryana but he failed to produce the same and he himself admitted in writing that he has no domicile of Haryana and he is not the resident of Haryana. The Estate Officer also mentioned in his letter that complainant has domicile of Bengal. Complainant also placed on record Ex.C17 brochure . In the salient features, it has been specifically mentioned that the applicant applying under the reserved category must be a domicile of Haryana.
6. The respondent also submitted this fact that complainant is not resident of Hayrana. As per the reserve category terms and conditions, mentioned at page no.5 of Ex.R1 i.e. “Applicants having domicile of Haryana State and belonging to Scheduled Casts/Tribes, Backward Classes, War Widow and Disabled Soldiers, etc. are eligible to apply against their respective reserved category for 4,5 & 6 Marla plots. The successful applicants will have to furnish a certificate to this effect issued by the respective authority before issuance of allotment letter”.
7. But the conduct of the complainant shows that he annexed his domicile of Bengal with the application and he has not mentioned anywhere that he is resident of Haryana. As per document CW21 itself shows that he has a residential address of New Delhi. There is bonafide mistake on the part of the complainant. Moreover it is the prime duty of the respondent office that firstly they should scrutinize the applications received by them in the reserved category or any other category and after that they should draw regarding the plots. Somehow there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are hereby directed to refund Rs.118400/-(Rupees one lac eighteen thousand four hundred only) to the complainant within 60 days otherwise they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.
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:
05.09.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
