Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 288.
Instituted on : 22.06.2018.
Decided on : 22.04.2019.
Sachin, age 40 years, son of Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of H.No. 285, Sector-1, Rohtak, Mob. 9891792191.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak.
2. The Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak.
3. Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K. Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K. Munjal, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had advertised a scheme for allotment of plots on free hold basis through e-auctions for residential plots in Sector-2(P), Urban Estate, Rohtak. The complainant had applied for the relevant category and he had deposited the amount of Rs.1,000/- towards non-refundable e-service fee for participation in e-auction and Rs.20,200/- towards EMD/Security amount for the site. The e-auction had taken place on dated 31.10.2016 and the complainant had deposited the 10% of the bid amount with the respondents. The complainant was informed vide letter memo No. Z0005/EO O.10/UE 018/GALOT/0000000008/65 dated 03.02.2017 by the respondents that his bid for plot No. 717-B in Sector-2(P) Urban Estate Rohtak has been accepted and he had been allotted the plot No. 717-B on free hold basis. Further in Para No. 4 of the allotment letter the complainant was advised to deposit 15% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.2,08,208/- with a period of 45 days from the date of auction i.e. up to 14.12.2016. The complainant was surprised and shocked to see the condition No. 4 of the allotment letter as he was informed about the allotment of the plot on dated 03.02.2017 and he was asked to deposit the amount of Rs.2,08,208/- up to 14.12.2016 which was quite impossible as the date had already expired. As such the complainant approached the office of the respondents and requested them to do the needful by way of rectifying the date of deposit of 15% of the bid amount. But the officials of the respondent No. 1 expressed their inability to deposit the 15% bid amount from the complainant until the necessary correction regarding date of deposit in the allotment letter was allowed and effected by the higher authority. The complainant was assured by the respondents that needful will be done very soon but nothing has been done by the respondents in this regard and the complainant continued to approach the respondents. That later on it was conveyed by the officials of respondents that the status of the said plot stand “cancelled” with the remarks that the requisite balance amount was to be deposited up to 31.05.2017 with the clarification that e-auction system is not clear, therefore, client had not been informed regarding current/existing status of the plot to deposit the amount. As the complainant was nowhere at fault as such he made a request to condone the delay in deposit of balance payment for the said plot. But his legal and genuine request was not acceded to by the respondents. The complainant had also applied for permission to mortgage the plot allotted to him with the P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. and the complainant as well as the Manager of the P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. had visited time and again in the office of respondent No. 1. The complainant again submitted a representation dated 06.07.2017 and dated 14.07.2017 to the respondents with the request to modify the condition No. 4 of the allotment letter and condoned the delay which was caused due to deficiency in service on the part of respondents. The complainant also submitted to remove the status “cancelled” with regard to the plot allotted to the complainant and to intimate the password number to deposit the remaining payment as the loan amount in favour of the plot was already sanctioned by P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. Karnal in the month of May 2017 and the payment of 15% amount was to be deposited against password and allotment letter to be issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak but nothing was done at the end of the respondents. That the respondent No. 1 sent a letter No. 6375 dated 06.06.2018 to the complainant vide which he has been asked to deposit the 15% of the bid amount for the plot along with delayed interest but still no date has been mentioned in the letter upto which the payment is to be deposited by the complainant. The complainant is running from pillar to post to get the justice but without any result. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the complainant to deposit 15% of the bid amount for the plot allotted to him without any interest or in alternate, the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount already deposited by the complainant with them at the same rate of interest as is being claimed by them from the date of deposit till actual realization and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses 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 due to technical difficulties and due to non preparation of the allotment from the software of the PPM system the allotment letters could not be issued in time. The allotment generated from the PPM system of the HUDA bears the date 31.10.2016 and accordingly requests was sent by the respondents No. 1 and 2 to the respondent No. 3 to do the needful. It is further submitted that the case of the complainant was sent to the higher authorities for the purpose of depositing the 15% amount of the plot in question alongwith interest. The complainant was further informed vide letter Memo No. 330 dated 18.01.2018, Letter Memo No. 4988 dated 24.04.2018 and letter Memo No. 6376 dated 06.06.2018 that there is no provision or the policy in the Department of HUDA to condone the 15% delayed interest. The respondents had further asked the complainant to deposit the balance amount of 15% alongwith delayed interest at the earliest and there is no policy or the provision in the Department of HUDA to condone the delayed interest. It is further submitted that as per Clause No. 17 of the terms and conditions for e-auction of the plot in question “After acceptance of the bid, the successful bidder will further be required to deposit another 15% of the bid amount within a period of 45 days of the date of auction. In case of failure to deposit the said amount within the above specified period, the allotment shall be cancelled and the 10% amount deposited towards bid money shall stand forfeited to the authority against which successful bidder shall have no claim for damages. That there is no question of condoning the delay in making the balance payment. The delayed interest cannot be condoned and the corrigendum as demanded by the complainant cannot be issued. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW42 and has closed his evidence on dated 16.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R36 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.12.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the plea taken by the opposite parties is that the plot was purchased in auction so the complainant is not consumer. In this regard, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble U.T.state Commission, Chandigarh 2006(1)CLT403 titled as Mandeep Kang Vs. P.U.D.A. and law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in 2014(2)CLT 41 titled as Kunj Bihari Lal & Ors. Vs. Urban Improvement Co. Pvt. Ltd., whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “ It is clear that the petitioner is a ‘Consumer”-He is not mere an auction purchaser-Certain other conditions are also stand proved, which make him a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act”. The aforesaid law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and as such complainant is consumer.
6. As per allotment letter Ex.C1 dated 03.02.2017 issued to the complainant, his bid for plot no.717-B in Sector 2(p) Urban Estate Rohtak has been accepted and as per para no.4 of this letter, complainant was advised to deposit 15% of the bid amount within a period of 45 days from the date of auction i.e. upto 14.12.2016. The complainant made representation before the opposite parties to modify the condition no.4 of the allotment letter dated 03.02.2017 as it was not possible to deposit the amount before 14.12.2016 against the letter dated 03.02.2017. So many letters/reminders were written by the complainant in this regard to the opposite parties and copy of the same is placed on record Ex.C16 to Ex.C38. A letter Ex.R40 was written by the opposite party No.1 to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula on 26.10.2017 and in this letter it has been mentioned that allotment letter was not updated in PPM system and tdoe to this reason the allotment letter was issued belatedly and due to this very reason, in PPM system of the opposite parties, the status of plot was shown as cancelled. The complainant could not deposit the 15% amount and necessary documents within time due to non-update of allotment letter in PPM system. Complainant has also approached to the respondent officials with the request to update the PPM system and allow the complainant to deposit the 15% remaining amount without interest but the respondent officials have not placed on record any document to prove that they have received any reply from their higher authorities. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter the 10% amount had already been deposited at the time of auction. Thereafter the 15% amount was to be deposited by the complainant within 45 days from the date of auction. Regarding this amount the complainant had made an objection and filed the present complaint. As per the allotment letter the remaining 75% amount i.e. Rs.1142423/- of the bid amount shall be paid by the complainant within a period of 120 days from the date of auction. The whole period had already been lapsed.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that complainant shall deposit the whole remaining amount i.e. 15% and 75% of the bid amount within 45 days through any mode of payment e.g. net banking, NEFT, demand draft or cheque etc. and opposite parties shall not charge any interest or penalty on the remaining amount of plot from the complainant. However, further terms and conditions will prevail as per allotment letter.
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:
22.04.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
