Haryana

Karnal

125/12

Smt.Sunita W/o Kawal Sindhwani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Moonak

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No. 125 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 29.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 2.2.2017

 

Smt. Sunita wife of Shri Kawal Sindhwani, resident of V.P.O. Choura, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

1. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal.

2. Sub Divisional Engineer-1, o/o Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal.

3. A.I.C.L. 54, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi.

                                      

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri S.S.Moonak Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Jitender Veer Singh Advocate for opposite parties.

                  

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that she  had purchased plot bearing no.748, sector 16, Urban Estate Karnal from Surinder Pal, vide reallotment letter no.9905 dated 3.8.2011. The said plot was transferred in her name. After taking possession of the plot and completing all the formalities and getting site plan sanctioned, she started construction over the said plot, but during the course of excavation of earth work. It was found that the main sewerage pipe line with main hole was passing through the said plot. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of the opposite parties, but despite oral as well as written requests no action was taken by the officials of the opposite parties to remove the sewerage pipe line and main hole, from the plot. The construction of the plot was to be completed by 31.3.2012, but due to hindrance/obstruction of sewerage pipe line, she was unable to complete the construction. Foul smell is coming out and sewerage water over flows from the main hole. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused her mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the plot no.748, sector-16 Urban Estate, Karnal was re-allotted in the name of the complainant, vide re-allotment letter dated 3.8.2011. However, before re-allotment the complainant submitted an affidavit/undertaking dated 8.6.2011, wherein she accepted the terms and conditions of allotment and was fully satisfied with regard to completion of all development works in the area. As per HUDA Policy dated 2.4.2007, the complainant was bound to raise/complete at least minimum required construction on her plot within 15 years including the initial stipulated period of two years after offer of possession. The complainant must have completed the construction and applied for occupation certificate upto 31.3.2012, but she was unable to complete the minimum required construction and filed the present complaint by taking advantage of her own fault. It has further been pleaded that the sewerage line and main hole were alongwith plot no.748 sector 16, Urban Estate Karnal and there was no obstacle to complete the construction over the plot, but the complainant failed to complete required construction within stipulated period. Therefore, the opposite parties were well within right to take action as per HUDA Act and policy. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sanjay Sharma photographer Ex.CW2/A , affidavit of Dalip Khurana Architect Ex.CW3/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 have been tendered.

4.                Opposite parties could not lead any evidence.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                As per the case of the complainant, she was to complete construction over the plot no.748, sector-16 Urban Estate, Karnal upto 31.3.2012, but during excavation of earth work, it was found that sewerage pipe line was passing through the plot and there was also main hole of the sewerage pipe line in the plot. The opposite parties in the written statement submitted that the sewerage pipe line and the main hole were along the plot and there was no obstacle to complete the construction over the plot.

7.                The complainant filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, wherein she has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. Dalip Khurana, Architect in his affidavit Ex.CW3/A stated that he visited plot no.748, sector-16 Urban Estate Karnal and found that there was main hole and sewerage pipe line under the said plot. He also stated that Sanjay Sharma Photographer had taken photographs of the plot in his presence. The affidavit of Sanjay Sharma is Ex.CW2/A, wherein he stated that he took photographs that Dalip Kumar visited the plot in his presence and that he had taken photographs of the plot. The photographs are Ex.C5 to Ex.C8. In these photographs main hole is clearly visible within the boundary of the plot. This evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

8.                From the evidence on record it stands established that a sewerage pipe line is passing through the plot of the complainant and the main hole of the said sewerage line also exists within the boundary of the plot. Existence of the sewerage pipe line and the main hole in the plot is certainly an obstruction for raising construction over the plot and that would cause lot of problems for the occupants in case construction is raised without removing the same. If, any fault occurs in the sewerage pipe line, then the boundary of the plot will have to be demolished. The sewerage pipe line may overflow through the main hole due to which the sewerage water would collect in the house which would emanate foul smell and cause lot of inconvenience including health problem to the occupants of house. Existence of sewerage line and main hole in the plot would certainly diminish the value of the plot. Therefore, for proper use of the plot removal of the sewerage pipe line and the main hole from the plot is necessary. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not bring to the notice of this forum any rule or instruction according to which sewerage pipe line can pass through any residential plot and the main hole can be installed in the plot. Therefore, non-removal of the sewerage pipe line and main hole from the plot of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion, the opposite parties are directed to remove the sewerage pipe line and the main hole from the plot of the complainant and lay down the sewerage pipe line alongwith main hole at sufficient distance from the boundary wall of the plot as per rules/ the policy of HUDA. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 2.2.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                             (Anil Sharma)                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                                 Member