Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 260
Instituted on : 08.06.2018
Decided on : 05.09.2022.
Satish Kumar age-50 yrs. S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Shockand, R/o H.No. 505, Sector-6, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sec-3, Rohtak.
- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sec-3, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Shri R.P.Deswal, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri M.K.Munjal, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that Plot No. 505, Sector-6, Rohtak was allotted to Smt. Neelam of Hissar vide memo No. Z00005/E0010/UE018/GALOT/0000000062-4599 dated 21.05.2012 and complainant purchased it from her and he made an application to opposite party for reallotment and transfer to his name. The said plot was re-allotted to complainant vide Memo No. Z005/E0010/UE18/RE ALL/0000000 450-2317 dated 23.03.2016. As per complainant, that all the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 21.05.2012 are binding on both the parties. The opposite party No.1 offered possession of plot to the complainant vide letter no. 3039 dated 27.04.2016 vide which he was to take possession of the plot within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter. Opposite party was required to complete development work and offer him plot within three years from the date of allotment but the same could not be given to him within the stipulated period. The complainant was offered possession of the plot on 27.04.2016 and he was directed to take possession within 30 days from the date of issuance of possession letter. Complainant has paid whole outstanding amount within 30 days and took possession within 30 days. However, opposite party have charged interest @ of 15% per annum from 21.01.2016 to 05.04.2016 from him whereas no possession interest was required to be charged. After introduction of GST by the Central Government, the VAT has been discontinued and there is no GST on Housing Sector. Inspite of all this the opposite parties have illegally charged Rs.8683/- from the complainant. The complainant has sent an application dated 31.05.2016 and an appeal dated 03.11.2017 which are received in the office of opposite party but all in vain. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and refund of excessive interest charged from 21.01.2015 to 05.04.2016 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realization, refund the amount of VAT alongwith 18% per annum and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that as per Clause 4 of the letter of offer of possession, the revised installments plan was given to the complainant. The offer of possession of plot in question was given vide letter memo no. Z005/E0010/UE018/OFPOS/0000005440 Dated 21.01.2016. It is further submitted that the possession certificate was issued in the favour of complainant on 05.05.2016 and building plan was also got passed on 10.06.2016. Thereafter vide letter memo no. 4702 dated 28.06.2016, the conveyance deed was issued in favour of the complainant. DPC certificate was issued in favour of the original allottee on 09.09.2016 and finally vide letter memo no. 6021 dated 03.08.2017 the completion certificate of the house in question was received by the complainant. It is further submitted that plot in question as already stated above was re-allotted to the complainant vide letter memo no2317 dated 22.03.2016 and the possession was offered vide letter memo no.3039 dated 27.04.2016 i.e. within a period of one month after re-allotment to the present complainant. Hence there is no question of paying the interest on the amount deposited by him. There is no delay in giving possession of the plot in question to the complainant. The development work in the area has already been completed and further more the development process is a continuing process. It has been clearly mentioned in the offer of possession letter dated 21.01.2016 that as per clause No. 6 of the allotment letter, interest at the rate 12% on all the remaining amount of installments will accrue from 21.01.2016 and accordingly the revised installments plan contained in the said offer of possession letter 21.01.2016 was mentioned. No possession interest has been charged from the complainant as alleged by him. It is wrong and denied that the complainant has sent an application dated 31.05.2016 and an appeal dated 03.11.2017. It is submitted that the complainant has already mortgaged his property with Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak after taking necessary permission from the answering opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 07.09.2018. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R19 and closed his evidence on dated 18.02.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. At the time of arguments, a document ‘Annexure-JN-A’ has been placed on record by the complainant. This letter is of instruction no.27 issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on 22.02.2017. These instructions have been issued by the department after receiving some references from the Estate Officer Rohtak and Bahadurgarh. The main references are as under: “References have been received from the Estate Officer, Rohtak and Bahadurgarh regarding grant of possession interest @ 9% p.a. simple to the re-allottee in case possession is not offered within period of 3 years of date of allotment”. In fact in the present complaint, the complainant pleaded that the possession has been offered belatedly to the original allottee and he demanded the interest upon the deposited amount from 21.01.2015 to 05.04.2016. The previous allotteeee Smt. Neelam has taken the possession from the respondent officials on dated 21.01.2016. After that re-allotment letter has been issued to the complainant vide memo no. Z005/E0010/UE18/RE ALL/0000000 450-2317 dated 23.03.2016so the present case of the complainant is different from the instructions issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority vide instruction no.27. No doubt, through the instruction No.27, the re-allottee is entitled for interest @9% p.a. if the possession has not been offered to the allottee or thereafter to the re-allottee within time limit as mentioned in allotment letter. But in the case in hand, the offer of possession has already been given to the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any interest. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. 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:
05.09.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
