Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 384.
Instituted on : 03.07.2017.
Decided on : 11.08.2021.
Satpal age 47 years s/o Sh. Dharambir R/o H.No.844/1, Dalyan Panna, village Sanghi Tehsil & District Rohtak.
………..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.
MS.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Rishi Deswal Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.K.Luthra, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that a plot No.500P Sector-6, Rohtak measuring 237.30 Sq.Mts. was allotted to Sh.Pardeep Kumar s/o Jai Bhagwan vide office memo no.4579 dated 21.05.2012 and subsequently the said plot was re-allotted to the complainant vide Re-allotment letter no.1461 dated 18.02.2016 on the same terms and conditions of original allotment. 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 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”. That opposite party no.3 wrongly offered the possession of the plot in question on 12.01.2016 without completing the development facilities in the area of the plot. That on making complaint the said wrong offer of possession was withdrawn by the respondent which was made only with intention to get the interest on the balance amount. The area of plot in question is under litigation and as such offer of possession of the plot cannot be given to the complainant. That complainant made complaint against non-offer of possession of the plot till date but the respondents refused to accept the request of complainant since the development activities have not been completed till date. That complainant applied for refund of interest on the deposited amount from the date of its deposit but the opposite parties have refused to refund the interest on the pretext of being re-allottee of the plot. As per policy circulated by Chief Administrator HUDA, Panchkula vide No.HUDA-C.C.F.-Acctt-1-2017/33010-11 dated 22.02.2017, it has been clearly mentioned that “re-allottee should also be entitled for possession interest treating at par with the original allottee if the original allotment letter contains the condition of payment possession interest @ 9% per annum simple and allotment has been made after 25.01.2007”, but the opposite parties have finally refused to make the refund of interest on the deposited amount to 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.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 after completing all the development activities or to provide alternate plot of same size and location alongwith delayed interest charged already, to offer the possession complete in all respects or any other plot mentioned above to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the respondents have withdrawn the offered possession of the plot because CWP is pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Hon’ble High Court has passed stay order. It is submitted that the possession will be offered to the complainant as soon as the decision given by the Hon’ble High Court. It is wrong that the development facilities have not been provided in the area of the plot in question till today. 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/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/H and also tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/B in additional evidence and closed his evidence on dated17.11.2020. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and the evidence of the opposite party was closed by the order of this Commission dated 09.04.2019.
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 the plot in question was re-allotted to the complainant vide letter dated 18.02.2016 and offer of possession was made earlier on 12.01.2016 but the same was cancelled by the opposite party due to plot under litigation in CWP-20329/2011. The complainant has submitted detail of deposit of amount with the respondent in his affidavit tendered as Ex.CW1/B in his additional evidence on dated 17.11.2020, which is as follows:
(i) Rs.211900/- at the time of allotment
(ii) Rs.415525/- dated 18.06.2012
(iii) Rs.1170000/- dated 29.12.2015
The total deposited amount comes to Rs.1797125/-
Complainant vide its application dated 14.10.2016 placed on record as Ex.CW1/H, had requested the opposite party to waive off the interest as per the HUDA policy and to allot an alternate plot to the complainant. As per condition no.7 of the allotment letter Ex.CW1/B, 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”. The allotment letter Ex.CW1/B 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 was offered on 12.01.2016 and lateron this letter was cancelled 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, at the time of arguments, opposite parties has contended that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the cost of plot is Rs.2508520/- which is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum(Rs.20 lcas). It is further contended 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. Regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, it is observed that the alleged pleas has not been taken by the opposite parties in their written statement and the same was taken only at the time of arguments. Moreover, at the time of filing the present complaint, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1797125/- only i.e. less than Rs.2000000/-. It is also observed that as per the amended Consumer Protection Act 2019, this Commission has the power of Rs.1 Crore. Hence this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is also observed that till date no 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 5 years from the date of re-allotment of plot. As per re-allotment letter annexed with the allotment letter Ex.CW1/B, the plot in question was re-allotted to the complainant on dated 18.02.2016 and as per policy circulated by Chief Administrator HUDA, Panchkula vide No.HUDA-C.C.F.-Acctt-1-2017/33010-11 dated 22.02.2017, it has been clearly mentioned that “re-allottee should also be entitled for possession interest treating at par with the original allottee if the original allotment letter contains the condition of payment possession interest @ 9% per annum simple and allotment has been made after 25.01.2007”. But neither the interest on the deposited amount nor the alternative plot has been given to the complainant. 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.
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 i.e. Rs1797125/- from 18.02.2016 to till offer of possession of plot in question or 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 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 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:
11.08.2021. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member
