Haryana

Karnal

597/11

Rulia Ram Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Gupta

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.597 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt.:21.09.2011

                                                              Date of decision:17.01.2017

 

Rulia Ram Gupta, Advocate, son of Shri Prithvi Raj Gupta, House no.10, Urban Estate, Sector-14, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.

2. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal.

 

                                                                        ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Rohit Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. R.R.Sharma Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint was filed by  Shri Rulia Ram Gupta (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was allotted a plot no.10, sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal, vide allotment letter/memo no.EO(K) 1461 dated 21.06.1979. He had made all the payments in respect of the said plot as per terms and conditions of allotment. Thereafter, he submitted a plan for sanction to the opposite party, for construction of the house on the said plot, which was duly sanctioned on 16.07.1985. He took possession of the said plot and filled the D.P.C. level. Certificate of D.P.C. level was issued by the opposite party, vide letter EO(K) dated 26.07.1986. Thereafter, he started construction of the house and completed the same. He received memo no.6033 dated 27.4.1987 for charging extension fee of Rs.607.50 for grant of extension of time for construction of plot, which was duly replied on 26.05.1987. It was clarified that he was not liable to pay any extension fee as he had already put lintel of his house at that time. Thereafter, another notice dated 18.09.1987 was received by him, whereby an amount of Rs.607.50 was demanded as extension fee which was duly replied on 19.10.1987. After construction of the house, he applied for electric connection to HSEB and demand notice bearing no.4766 dated 25.02.1988 was received in that regard and accordingly he deposited Rs.379/- as security, vide receipt no.126 dated 25.2.1988. Then electric connection was provided to him by HSEB. After completion of the construction of the house, he started residing therein and applied for sewerage connection to Executive Engineer HUDA and sanction of the same was given, vide memo no.1154 dated 8.12.1989. Since then he had been regularly paying sewerage and water charges to opposite party and house tax after imposition of the same by the Municipal Committee, Karnal. He applied to the office of the opposite party no.2 for details of the amount due towards the said plot so that he could deposit the entire amount to obtain conveyance deed and sent registered letter dated 25.5.2010 for that purpose. A reminder was also issued by him on 21.7.2010. The opposite party sent letter dated 5.7.2010, but in the said letter no details or bifurcation i.e. principal amount and rate of interest were given and the details given were illegal, excessive and arbitrary. However, he deposited the demanded amount of Rs.2,02,550/- against protest, vide demand draft no.744593 dated 3.8.1010 drawn on Rajasthan Bank Karnal. Receipt bearing no.2454 dated 3.8.2010 was also issued by the opposite party. The opposite party could not charge compound interest and could charge only simple interest @10% per annum on enhanced cost of land, but the opposite party had charged cost of additional amount with compound interest and that to at higher rate, which was not payable by him. The opposite party was adamant not to supply the copy of statement of account and refund the excess amount charged from him. Opposite parties had not given the details of the amount for purchase of stamp paper for execution and registration of conveyance deed, despite his application dated 31.05.2011. Such acts and conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental agony and humiliation apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complaint is time barred and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant was allotted that plot no.10, sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal, vide allotment letter dated 21.06.1979 and possession of the same was offered to him, vide letter dated 18.12.1980 and sewer connection was issued on 18.12.1989. However, complainant did not apply for the regular occupation certificate till today as per HUDA policy, therefore, he was bound to pay dues on account of extension fee as per HUDA Policy. HUDA is competent to charge interest on due payments from its allottee as per rules and regulations framed under section 54 of the HUDA Act. The interest was charged from the complainant on due payments as per policy instructions dated 19.9.1985 and 22.09.2000. As per condition of the allotment letter the allottee is bound to pay the enhanced amount time to time and also the interest of delayed period, if any, as per HUDA policy rules and regulations. The complainant had failed to deposit enhancement within time, for which various notices were also issued. It has also been pleaded that the complainant previously filed civil suit no.384 of 2001, which was dismissed on 26.04.2002. Appeal filed against the judgment and decree, was also dismissed on 26.03.2003 by the then learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. The Regular Second Appeal no.352 of 2005 was also filed, but the same was also dismissed on 3.11.2008. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Mohan Nagpal Dealing Assistant Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8  have been tendered.

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.                It is not in dispute that plot no.10 sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal was allotted to the complainant, vide letter dated 21.06.1989 and possession was also offered to him, vide letter dated 18.12.1980. He had applied for sanction of plan, which was duly sanctioned and thereafter he raised construction. He obtained electric connection. Sewer connection was issued to him by Executive Engineer HUDA Karnal on 08.12.1989.

7.                The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant did not apply for regular Occupation Certificate, but their plea cannot be accepted because as per the information obtained by the complainant under Right to Information Act, the copy of which is Ex.C19, for issuance of the sewerage connection Occupation Certificate is necessary. Admittedly, the complainant was issued sewerage connection on 18.12.1989, which means that the occupation certificate to the complainant was issued before that date.

8.                The complainant has alleged that the demand of Rs.2,02,550/- raised by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 5.7.2010, was illegal, as the details of the statement of account of the enhancement and the interest and that too compound were not given.

9.                 The complainant alongwith some other persons filed civil suit no.436 of 1991, which was decided in their favour, vide judgment dated 31.1.1996, the copy of which is Ex.C16. It was held that the defendants now the opposite parties are entitled to recover the enhanced compensation shall issue fresh demand notice which includes the calculation by spreading over enhanced compensation proportionately divided between the land reserved for HUDA and the plot holders. The complainant alongwith some other persons filed another civil suit no.384 of 2001 challenging the notice of the opposite parties issued in March,1990, but that suit was dismissed, vide judgment dated 26.04.2002, the copy of which is Ex.OP1. The complainant and other persons filed appeal against the said judgment and decree, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 26.3.2003, by the then learned District Judge, Karnal, the copy of which is Ex.OP2. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court, but his appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 3.11.2008, the copy of which is Ex.OP3.

10.              The opposite parties have asserted that interest was calculated on the payments due as per the policies dated 19.9.1985 and 22.09.2000, the copies of which are Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5, in terms of the allotment letter. The opposite parties have also produced the statement of account, according to which the complainant had paid the entire amount as price of the plot upto 7.4.1985. The amount of first enhancement was also deposited on 28.4.1986. The second enhancement amount was paid upto 6.2.1990 and third enhancement amount was paid upto 8.2.2000. On the second and third enhancements simple interest @ 15% from 3.4.2000 to 3.8.2010 was calculated. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.2,02,550/- on 3.8.2010. On that day, on calculation it was found that he had deposited excess amount of Rs.7267.35. The opposite parties charged extension fee for the period of 1987 to 1989 alongwith surcharge upto 3.8.2010 and the total amount was found as Rs.11031/-. After deducting the excess amount of Rs.7268/- balance was found as Rs.3763/- and thereafter surcharge/interest upto 15.7.2013 was calculated as Rs.1297/-. Total outstanding amount upto 15.7.2013 was found as Rs.5060/-. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any mistake in the said calculation sheet prepared by the opposite parties. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the said calculations are in accordance with the judgments passed by Civil Courts between the parties and the interest has been charged as per policies of HUDA in accordance with the terms of the allotment. Thus, it is clear that on 15.7.2013 the opposite parties were entitled to recover an amount of Rs.5060/- only from the complainant.

11.              After clearing the dues by the complainant it was duty of the opposite parties to execute and get registered the conveyance deed in his favour. The complainant had even written letter to the opposite parties on 31.5.2011 for giving details of the amount for purchase of stamp paper and for execution and registration of the conveyance deed as per clause 13 of the allotment letter. However, the opposite parties did not take any step in that direction. If, the complainant was liable to pay some amount, the opposite parties could issue notice to him for depositing such amount, give details of registration and stamp charges and fix the date for execution and getting registered the conveyance deed, but the opposite parties did not take any step in that direction, which amounted to deficiency in service.

12.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite parties to give the details of the outstanding amount i.e. Rs.5060 + interest/surcharge after 15.7.2013 and stamp and registration expenses for conveyance deed and then execute and get registered conveyance deed in favour of legal heirs of the complainant, as he had already died during pendency of the complaint, within 30 days of depositing the said amount by them. 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:17.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member