Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 654.
Instituted on : 15.11.2017.
Decided on : 14.01.2020.
Ruchi Sharma D/o Sh. Shankar Dass Sharma, R/o H.No.636/19. Faridabad, Haryana, aged 25 years, Mob. No.9811023237.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.
- Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rohtak.
- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rishi 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.158GP Sector-6, Rohtak measuring 150 sq.(6Marla) Mts. was allotted to the complainant vide office memo No.4654 dt. 21.05.2012 on certain terms and conditions mentioned in allotment letter. That 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 the complainant after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession and the complainant 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 him”. That opposite party no.3 wrongly offered the possession of the plot in question on 04.09.2013 without completing the development facilities in the area of the plot. The area of plot in question is under litigation and as such the possession of the plot cannot be given to the complainant. That complainant requested for allotment of alternate plot, demanded interest on the deposited amount till the date of allotment of alternate plot and to refund already charged interest on account of wrong offer of possession but the opposite parties have finally refused to accept the request of the complainant. That 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.10,00,000/- 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 in lieu of the original plot by withdrawing the already offer of possession on dated 24.07.2017 and to refund the amount of interest or penalty, if any, charged from the complainant and to refund the amount of interest already charged from the complainant on account of wrong offer of possession and not to demand enhanced amount till the date of offer of possession of alternate plot fully developed in all respects and not to charge interest on the enhanced amount till then.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that some of the area of sector-6 is under litigation as the owner of the land acquired has filed a civil writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Hon’ble High Court has passed stay order and due to that development work could not be completed in some of the area. The respondent has sent requisition before the higher authorities for sanction of alterative plots in lieu of plots which comes within the area under litigation and the possession will be offered to the complainant as soon as the CWP is decided by the Hon’ble High Court or alternate plot is sanctioned 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 wrong to allege that development facilities have not been completed in the area. The complainant is not entitled to get any refund. 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, documents Ex.CW1/A to Ex/CW1/C, and the evidence of the complainant was closed by the order dated 09.01.2019 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on dated 25.04.2019.
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 opposite party no.3 wrongly offered the possession of the plot in question on 04.09.2013 without completing the development facilities in the area of the plot. As per condition no.7 of the allotment letter, it is submitted by the opposite parties that : “The possession of the plot will be offered within a period or 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 @ 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 the further installments. The payment of the balance installments will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to you”. As per the alleged terms and conditions of allotment letter and policy dated 25.01.2007 the complainant requested the opposite party for allotment of alterative plot and demanded interest on the deposited amount till the date of allotment of alternate plot and to refund the already charged interest on account of wrong offer of possession but they refused for the same.
6. On the other hand, contention of the opposite parties is that some of the area of Sector-6 is under litigation and the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has passed a stay order and due to that, development work could not be completed in some of the area. The respondent 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 same would be provided as and when the sanction would be granted by higher authorities.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that 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 more than 7 years from the date of allotment. The complainant should not suffer for not taking the decision by the higher authorities for sanction of alternate plot. As such, opposite party is liable to give the possession of another plot in the adjoining area to the complainant. We have also come to the conclusion that the demand of enhanced amount from the complainant is also wrong because till date it has not been finalized that whether the complainant will get the plot in same sector or in the adjoining sector.
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 a preferential 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 by the complainant. It is made clear that the interest will start after the expiry of three years on each of the respective deposit till the date of offer of possession of alternative plot to the complainant. 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 and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
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:
14.01.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
