Haryana

Karnal

CC/15/2017

Smt. Meena Sahni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Malhotra

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.15 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 12.01.2017

                                                         Date of decision: 16.2.2018

 

Smt. Meena Sahni, age 70 years, wife of Shri Anil Kumar Sahni, Advocate, resident of House no.4, Minor Road, Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                  …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal through its Estate Officer.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri S.K.Malhotra  Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Bhanu Partap Singh Advocate for OP.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that vide allotment letter dated 7.4.1992 the complainant was allotted plot no.12-SP measuring 450 Sq. meters in sector 5, U.E. Karnal Rs.5,72,040/-. This amount included Rs.95,340/- as extra premium being preferential. The balance amount of Rs.4,29,030/- was payable in six equal annual installments. Each installment was to be paid together with interest @ 15% per annum but as per the clause 6 the interest would accrue only after the date of offer of possession. All the installments were deposited by the complainant as per schedule contained in the allotment letter. Vide letter dated 15.3.1999, the OP asked the complaint to give consent for change of the plot as there was a dispute of title with respect to the plot allotted to the complainant. OP again wrote letter dated 28.7.1999 stating that the dispute is pending in the Hon’ble High Court and OP would not be responsible regarding the delivery of the possession.  Vide letter dated 13.3.2002 the OP raised a demand for enhancement of Rs.3,52,800/- whereas in its letter dated 1.2.2002, the amount of enhancement was stated to be Rs.2,19,317/- at the rate of 487.37 per sq. meters. Again vide letter dated 21.1.2004 an amount of Rs.7,00,574/- was demanded on account of enhancement and interest at the rate of 15%. In May, 2015 the complainant was asked to deposit the amount of enhancement amounting to Rs.14,74,500/- i.e. Rs.2,19,317/- as enhancement and Rs.12,55,183/- on account of overdue interest. Possession was again and again sought but the OP always avoided and finally vide its letter dated 26.7.2016, replied that it was not possible to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant. It was on 17.10.2016 that the complainant received a letter asked her to come and take possession of the plot in question which was delivered on papers on 24.10.2016 but not actually at the spot so far. When the OP could not deliver the possession, it could not charge the interest as per the terms of the allotment letter and more so there was admittedly a dispute of title with respect to the plot in question. So the demand of the OP was not justified legally to recover the interest of Rs.12,55,183/- and the complainant is entitled to the refund of this amount alongwith interest 15% per annum from the date of payment of the amount of interest till its realization.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action; stopped of her won act and conduct; jurisdiction and concealments of true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the plot no.12-SP Sector-5 was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter no.5711 dated 7.4.1992 and the complainant was duty bound to pay the installments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter but complainant has failed to deposit the amount of installments well in time as per the schedule, as such she is liable to pay the interest as per the terms of allotment. It is made clear that no possession interest has been charged from the complainant. It has further been submitted that some land owners have filed the writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court and challenged the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 04.04.1990 and 3.5.1990 granted stay qua further proceedings. It has further been submitted that the mini draw was held on 31.03.1999 for allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the allotted plots to the allottee whose plots were fallen in the said land and in that regard necessary intimation was given to the complainant vide this office letter no.3620 dated 15.3.1999. In response to said letter, the complainant moved an application dated 18.3.1999 stating therein that she is not interested for any other plot than the plot which had already been allotted to her and thus she had not participated in the said draw and had foregone her right of alternative plot. It has further been submitted that thereafter vide letter no.15726 dated 28.7.1999 OP had replied the complainant that she is not interested for alternative plot and if she wants to remain her plot no.12SP in Sector-5 UE Karnal, there is no responsibility of the HUD to give her the possession of this specific plot no.12SP because the land underneath the said plot is subject matter of the dispute with the land owners of Sector-5 pending in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was further clarified that HUDA is not responsible for any claim regarding offer of possession. The development work was executed in the area where the plot of the complainant is situated and possession of the said plot was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 1496 dated 17.10.2016. IT is further made clear that no possession interest was charged from the complainant. However, the complainant is bound to pay the extension fee if she failed to complete the construction over the plot in question within stipulated period i.e. upto two years from the date of offer of possession as per HUDA policies framed from time to time in this regard. It has further been submitted that as per condition no.9 of the allotment letter the complainant is bound to pay the enhancement compensation. Accordingly, vide letter no.710 dated 18.12.1995 the complainant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.1,45,283/- on account of first enhancement compensation payable within 30 days without any interest and/or in three installments with 15% p.a interest as detailed given in column no.6 of the said letter. Another letter for second enhancement was issued to the complainant vide memo no.594 dated 1.10.2002 demanding a sum of Rs.2,19,317/- without interest within 30 days from the date of issue of letter or with interest 15% p.a by way of four installment. The complainant has failed to deposit the said amount well in time and as such she is liable to pay interest as per HUDA policies. The possession had already offered to the complainant vide letter dated 17.10.2016 and the complainant did not come forward for seeking physical possession. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C19 and closed the evidence on 18.5.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Yogesh Ranga Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 16.10.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant was allotted plot no.12-SP measuring 450 Sq. meters in sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal vide allotment letter dated 7.4.1992 Ex.C-7 for Rs.5,72,040/- .It is a matter of record that some land owners have challenged the notification under section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 4.4.1990 and 3.5.1990 granted stay. It is admitted fact of the parties that for the allottees whose plots were fallen in the land which was under dispute in the Hon’ble High Court, the OP held a mini draw on 31.3.199 for allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the allotted plots. It is admitted by the complainant that in this regard the OP vide letter dated 15.3.1999 Ex.C-12 asked the complainant to give consent for change of the plot as there was a dispute of the title with respect to the land plot allotted to the complainant. It is not disputed that complainant declined the said offer and asserted vide letter dated 18.3.1999 Ex.C-10 that she would keep the allotted plot. So the complainant had not participated in the said draw on 31.3.1999 and she had forgone her right of the alternative plot. It is admitted by the complainant that thereupon OP wrote a letter dated 28.7.1999 Ex.C-9 stating therein that the dispute is pending in the Hon’ble High Court and that the OP would not be responsible regarding delivery of the possession of the plot in question.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that it is a matter of record and also admitted by the complainant that OP vide letter dated 18.12.1995 Ex.C-8 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,45,283/- on account of first enhancement and compensation payable  within 30 days without any interest and/or in three installments with 15% p.a. interest as detailed given in column no.6 of the said letter i.e. Ex.C-8. Similar vide letter dated 1.10.2002 Ex.C5/Ex.OP-9, the OP asked the complainant to deposit Rs.2,19,317/- on account of second enhancement compensation payable within 30 days without interest or with 15% p.a. interest by way of four installment as detailed in column no.6 of said letter.

8.             The allegations of the complainant are that the complainant has deposited all the installments of the allotment letter as per schedule of the allotment letter. It is further alleged that vide letter dated 13.3.2002 Ex.C-4, the OP raised the demand for enhancement of Rs.3,52,800/- whereas vide letter dated 1.2.2002, the amount of enhancement was stated to be Rs.2,19,317/- at the rate of Rs.487.37 per sq. meters. It is further alleged that in May, 2015 the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.14,74,500/- of enhancement including interest. It is further alleged that the OP is not legally entitled to recover any amount of interest as per clause 6 of the allotment letter as the possession has not been offered before raising the demand of enhancement and  interest. It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.14,74,500/- vide cheque dated 9.5.2015 Ex.C-16. It is further alleged that the possession of the plot in question offered only vide letter dated 17.10.2016 which was only on papers but not actually delivered at the spot. It is further alleged that the OP was not justified legally to recover the interest component of Rs.12,55,183/-and the complainant is entitled for refund of this amount alongwith interest @ 15% per annum and also for Rs.5 lakhs on account of compensation. The complainant produced authorities 2010 (3) CPC 544 (NC) titled as HUDA Versus Anil Sehgal and 2004(2) CPC 365 (NC) titled as Mrs. Sudarshan Versus HUDA.

9.             It is contended by the OP that the amount of installment of the allotment letter were not deposited by the complainant well in time and the same were deposited late with delayed interest as detailed in para no.2 of the reply. It is further contended that no possession interest has been charged from the complainant. It is further contended that the Hon’ble High Court granted stay qua further proceedings in case filed by some land owners, so the complainant vide letter dated 15.3.1999 was asked for consent for an alternative plot in mini draw to be held on 31.3.1999 but the complainant declined that offer vide letter dated 18.3.1999 and did not participate in the draw and thus forgone her right of alternative plot. It is further contended that vide letter dated 28.7.1999 Ex.C-9, the OP informed the complainant that the OP is not responsible to give her (complainant) possession of the plot in question. The complainant did not reply that letter i.e. Ex.C-9 which means the complainant agreed with letter dated 28.7.1999. Therefore, the OP is not responsible for the delay in offer of possession of the plot in question. It is further contended that the writ petition of the land owners mentioned above was disposed off vide order dated 7.10.2010 and accordingly the development work was executed in the area where the plot of the complainant was situated and thereafter the possession of the plot was offered vide letter dated 17.10.2016. It is further contended that the relevant clause of the allotment letter for enhancement is clause no.9 and not clause no.6. The clause 6 deals with the installments of the allotment letter, whereas clause 9 deals with regard to enhancement. According to clause no.9 the additional price determined on the basis of enhancement shall be paid within 30 days of its demand and there is no condition regarding offer of possession of the plot. Moreover, in letter dated 18.12.1995 Ex.C-8 and letter dated 1.10.2002 Ex.C-5, the OPs has specifically mentioned the detail for payment of enhanced compensation in column no.6 of these letters but the complainant has failed to deposit the same. Therefore, the OP has charged the amount of interest as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the complainant is bound to pay the same. Moreover, the complainant has deposited the same without any protest, so now complainant cannot seek the refund. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OP.

10.           From the above facts of the case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is that whether the complainant was not liable to pay interest on the amounts of enhancement compensation without offer of possession of the plot in question or in the alternative that whether the OP has rightly recovered the interest on the enhancement compensation as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter? According to the complainant, as per clause 6 of the allotment letter Ex.C-7, the OP cannot recover the interest on the amount of enhancement without offer of possession, whereas according to the OP the relevant clause is clause no.9 for the payment of amount of enhancement of compensation. Both these clause i.e. no.6 and 9 of the allotment letter Ex.C-7 are produced below:

6.     “The balance amount i.e. Rs.4,29,030/- of the above tentative price of the plot/building can be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or an 6 annual installments. The first installment will fall due after the expiry of one year of the date of issue of this letter. Each installment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 15% interest on the remaining amount. The interest shall however, accrue from the date of offer of possession.”

9.     “The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquition Act shall also be payable proportionately, as determined by the Authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of its demand.”

 

On perusal of both these clause, it is crystal clear that clause no.6 deals with the tentative price of the plot on which the plot was allotted which can be paid in lumpsum without interest within 60 days or in 6 annual installments with 15% interest on the remaining amount and the interest shall accrue from the date of offer of possession. However, it is made clear here that the 1^st installment became due after the expiry of one year of the date of issue of allotment letter and if the allottee failed to deposit the installment on due date, even then the allottee has to pay interest on the amount of installment. This fact is further clear from para no.2 of the reply on merits of the OPs wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the complainant has paid the delay interest on the installment and the complainant has not disputed the same.

11.           From clause 9 mentioned above, it is clear that the same deals with the matter of enhancement in the cost of land awarded by competent authority and additional price determined on the basis of enhancement shall be paid within 30 days of its demand. From the letter dated 18.12.1995 Ex.C-8 and letter dated 1.10.2002 Ex.C-5, it is clear that the OP has given option to the complainant either to pay the amount of enhancement compensation within 30 days without any interest or in 3 & 4 installment with interest as mentioned in detail in said letters. On perusal of clause 9, it is further clear that the offer of possession is not in any way relevant regarding the payment of enhanced compensation. The authorities produced by the complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant was liable to pay the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation because the complainant has not deposited the same with stipulated period of 30 days and it is immaterial that whether the possession of the plot has been offered or not. We are further of the view that the OP has committed no mistake in recovering the interest on the amount of enhancement regarding the plot in question.

12.           The next contention of the complainant is that the OP may be directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the plot in question. This contention of complainant has no force because the land under the plot of complainant was in dispute before the Hon’ble High Court and the OP has granted an opportunity to the complainant for alternative plot and the complainant herself decline the same. Moreover, the OP has written to the complainant vide letter Ex.C-9 that OPs would not be responsible for any claim regarding delay in offer of possession. Therefore, now it cannot be said by the complainant that he is entitled for compensation on account of delay in delivery of possession of the plot. In these circumstances, in our view the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on account of delay in offers of possession of the plot in question.

13.           In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we found no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.02.2018                                              President

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

   (Anil Sharma)

                        Member