Haryana

Kaithal

CC/143/2022

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Devepoment Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Gurdeep Singh

02 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 143 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   27.05.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      02.05.2024.

 

Jarnail Singh s/o Shri Amrit Lal, r/o Bala Ji Colony, Behind Sanjog Palace, Karnal Road, Kaithal, now at H.No.327, Sector-21, HUDA, Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, (Now Haryana Sehri Vikas Pradhikaran), through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (Now Haryana Sehri Vikas Pradhikaran), Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Complainant in person with Shri Gurdeep Singh, Advocate.   

                   Shri Subhash Chugh, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

          Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that he is an advocate by profession and a plot bearing No.327, Sector 21, HSVPN, Kaithal was allotted to him in reserve category. That there was specific terms and conditions in the allotment letter bearing No.Z0004/E0007/UE015/GALOT/0000001091 dated 01.06.2021 and as per term No.7 of that allotment, it was the duty of the OPs to handover the possession of the plot in question to him within 3 years, and in case the OPs failed to do so, then OPs is bound to pay the interest @9% on the amount, deposited by him. That as per terms and conditions of the allotment, OPs were bound to handover the possession of the plot to him up to 30.05.2014, but they had issued the offer of possession letter vide memo No.KTL/2011 dated 06.05.2015 and in this way, OPs charged the interest from him illegally from 28.12.2014 to 06.05.2015 and now the OPs are bound to refund the interest @9% PA charged from him and also to refund the interest on the whole amount @9% PA as per term No.7 of Allotment Letter. That the OPs had also not issued the NOC to him with all the formalities and all the necessary fees etc. were deposited and for NOC file was got deposited on 24.12.2020 along with documents, but OPs did not issue NOC and legally cancelled the file despite the fact that all the documents were attached with the file and complainant again deposited Rs.5900/- on 06.01.2021 as charges for next year, which were got deposited under compulsion due to negligence of OPs. That he is entitled to refund along with interest as per law, because file was completed in all respects on 24.12.2020, which was got deposited through Shri Bal Krishan, Architect, which was on the panel of OPs and expert in this regard and no question of deposit of file with less documents arise at all. That he was asked by the employee of OPs to deposit the amount of Rs.5031/- in the month of January 2017 and challan was filed upon by the employee of OPs and it was to be got deposited as extension. That the employee filled up the challan for service tax on principal extension fee instead of extension fee and the amount of Rs.5301/- was got deposited vide challan No.130330 dated 18.01.2017 in the wrong head. That he again deposited the amount for extension fee vide challan No.130936 dated 19.01.2017 and in this way, he is entitled to refund the amount of Rs.5031/- with interest and also entitled for Rs.10,000/- which were got deposited at the time of sanction of malba charges. That he applied to the OPs for refund vide application dated 12.03.2021, which was received by OPs vide Office No.583 dated 15.03.2021. That after that, when OPs did not hear him, then he filed a complaint through CM Window on 27.01.2021 and only vide letter No.149 dated 28.01.2022, OPs informed him that service tax of Rs.5031/- which was deposited by him by mistake and there is no policy to refund the same. That all the documents were deposited with OPs on 24.12.2020, but OPs did not issue completion certificate in the year 2021, due to that, he met to OP No.2, who asked him to deposit the charges for the next year 2022, which were deposited by him under compulsion, as such, he is entitled for refund of Rs.5900/-. That the OPs wrongly alleged that they issued offer of possession letter on 28.12.2014, in fact, it was issued, by OPs, vide memo No.KTL2011/3788 dated 06.05.2015.The above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, stating therein that all the requirement works i.e. basic amenities have been provided in this area. The complainant never approached the OPs to issue the offer of possession despite all the amenities provided to the area. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with cost.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C29. At the time of arguments, complainant produced readable copies of Annexure C-5, C-6, C14, C16 and C17 along with documents as Mark-A to Mark-P.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-2.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Complainant has argued that a plot bearing No.327, Sector 21, HSVPN, Kaithal was allotted to him in reserve category. He further argued that as per allotment letter dated 01.06.2021, term No.7, it was the duty of the OPs to handover the possession of the plot in question to him, and in case the OPs failed to do so, then OPs is bound to pay the interest @9%, on the amount, deposited by him. He further argued that as per terms and conditions of the allotment, OPs were bound to handover the possession of the plot to him up to 30.05.2014, but they had issued the offer of possession letter vide memo No.KTL/2011 dated 06.05.2015 and in this way, OPs charged the interest from him illegally from 28.12.2014 to 06.05.2015 and now the OPs are bound to refund the interest @9% PA charged from him and also to refund the interest on the whole amount @9% PA as per term No.7 of Allotment Letter. He further argued that the OPs had also not issued the NOC to him with all the formalities and all the necessary fees etc. were deposited and for NOC file was got deposited on 24.12.2020 along with documents, but OPs did not issue NOC and legally cancelled the file, despite the fact that all the documents were attached with the file and he again deposited Rs.5900/- on 06.01.2021 as charges for next year, which were got deposited under compulsion due to negligence of OPs. He further argued that he is entitled to refund along with interest as pr law, because file was completed in all respects on 24.12.2020, which was got deposited through Shri Bal Krishan, Architect, which was on the panel of OPs and expert in this regard and no question of deposit of file with less documents arise at all. He further argued that he applied to the OPs for refund vide application dated 12.03.2021, which was received by OPs vide Office No.583 dated 15.03.2021. That after that, when OPs did not hear him, then he filed a complaint through CM Window on 27.01.2021 and only vide letter No.149 dated 28.01.2022, OPs informed him that service tax of Rs.5031/- which was deposited by him by mistake and there is no policy to refund the same. He further argued that all the documents were deposited with OPs on 24.12.2020, but OPs did not issue completion certificate in the year 2021, due to that, he met to OP No.2, who asked him to deposit the charges for the next year 2022, which were deposited by him under compulsion, as such, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.5900/-. He further argued that the OPs wrongly alleged that they issued offer of possession letter on 28.12.2014, in fact, it was issued, by OPs, vide memo No.KTL2011/3788 dated 06.05.2015. He further submitted that he is not claiming the malba charges of Rs.10,000/-, at this stage, because the same has been received to him during the pendency of the present complaint.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has argued that the OPs have not asked the complainant to pay Rs.5031/- in their head, which is online, as such, OPs are not responsible to refund this amount, because, this amount has been deposited in the Taxation Department. He further argued that since the complainant again deposited Rs.5900/- in their account, meaning thereby, the complainant himself admitted his fault of wrong depositing the amount of Rs.5031/- in other department head. He further argued that there is no rule to refund the amount with interest by the OPs. He further argued that all the requirement works i.e. basic amenities have been provided in the area to the complainant.

9.                Admittedly, a plot bearing No.327 (category residential 14 marla) in Sector 21, Urban Estate, Kaithal was allotted to the complainant Jarnail Singh, vide Allotment Letter dated 01.06.2011 Annexure C-1. The complainant has to pay six yearly installments of Rs.4,37,400/- each, commencing from 01.06.2012 to 01.06.2017 respectively and in response to that, the complainant has deposited Rs.5,24,800/- on 23.06.2011; Rs.4,37,400/- three times i.e. on 20.06.2012, 20.06.2013, 05.06.2014; Rs.2,34,000/- on 19.01.2015 and Rs.6,16,000/- on 02.06.2015 vide HDFC Bank CMS Deposit Slips Mark-D to Mark-I respectively.  

10.              The complainant has firstly drawn attention of this Commission towards Condition No.7 of Allotment Letter Annexure C-1, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the possession of the plot will be offered within a period of 3 years, from the date of allotment. Since the OPs offered the allotment letter Annexure C-1, to the complainant on 01.06.2011, therefore, they (OPs) were bound to provide the possession of the plot in question, to the complainant on or before 30.05.2014. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that contrary to it, the OPs had provided the possession letter to the complainant on 06.07.2015 instead of 30.05.2014, and produced letter Annexure C-2, on the case file, in this regard, and submitted that in this letter Annexure C-2, no doubt, the OPs had written the “Offer of possession dated 28.12.2014”, but this letter has been received to him, after 06.07.2015 and the said date is also mentioned by hand, on the said letter Annexure C-2, by some employee of the OPs. In this regard, learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that offer of possession through letter Annexure C-2 was issued to the complainant on 28.12.2014. Since OPs are contending that they had issued this letter of possession to the complainant on 28.12.2014, therefore, the onus was upon the OPs to prove that by which mode they had sent this letter to the complainant on 28.12.2014, but contrary to it, learned counsel for the OPs has failed to produce any postal receipt or email confirmation etc., on the case file, to prove his above version that they had issued this offer letter to the complainant on or before 28.12.2014, and in the absence of that, the above contentions of OPs is rejected. Hence, we found force in the above submission of the complainant that he received the offer of possession letter from the OPs after 06.07.2015.  

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that since the OPs failed to handover the possession of the plot in question to him within three years, therefore, they are bound to pay the interest @9%, on the amount, deposited by him as per Condition No.7 of Allotment Letter Annexure C-1. This Commission perused Condition No.7 of Allotment Letter Annexure C-1. Since as per allotment letter Annexure C-1, the OPs were bound to provide the possession of plot in question to the complainant on or before 30.05.2014, but contrary to it, they (OPs) offered the same, to the complainant after 06.07.2015, hence, as per above Condition No.7, the OPs are liable to pay the interest @9% PA to the complainant on the amount deposited by him after 30.05.2014, but as per complainant, he approached the OPs various times, with a request to pay the interest on the amount deposited by him after lapse of three years, but the OPs refused to pay the same to him, which amount to deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

12.              As per Allotment Letter Annexure C-1, the complainant was bound to deposit three installments of Rs.4,37,400/- up to 05.06.2014 i.e. total Rs.13,12,200/-, but contrary to it, from Mark-D to Mark-I, it is evident that the complainant had deposited total Rs.18,37,000/- i.e. Rs.5,24,800/- excess and further Rs.2,34,000/- was deposited on 19.01.2015 and then Rs.6,16,000/- on 02.06.2015 and the detail of interest on the above amount is as under:-

• Interest on Rs.5,24,800/- (Mark-D) @9% PA from 01.06.2014 to 06.07.2015 i.e. for 13 months and five days comes to Rs.51,815/-.
• Interest on Rs.2,34,000/- (Mark-H) @9% PA from 19.01.2015 to 06.07.2015 i.e. for 5 months and 16 days comes to Rs.9698/-.
• Interest on Rs.6,16,000/- @9% PA from 02.06.2015 to 06.07.2015 i.e. for 1 month and 5 five days comes to Rs.5380/-.

 

13.              In this way, the complainant is entitled to total interest amount of Rs.66,893/- (51815+9698+5380), from the complainant.

14.              Now coming to the second point. The complainant has submitted that in the month of January 2017, amount of Rs.5301/- was got deposited by him, vide challan No.130330 dated 18.01.2017 Annexure C-5, which was filled up by his clerk as per guidance of employee of OPs, in Urban Estate Head UE015, but OPs cancelled the same by saying that the amount was deposited in the wrong head of Service Tax on Principal Ext Fee, that’s why again he deposited the amount of Rs.4374/- for extension fee, vide challan No.130936 dated 19.01.2017 Annexure C-6 on the same head, which was accepted by the OPs. He further submitted that he approached the OPs various times and made request orally as well as through written letters to refund the said amount, but the OPs had refused to refund the same by saying that there is no provision to refund the said amount to him. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the OPs has admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.5031/- in their head on 18.01.2017, but stated that they (OPs) had not asked the complainant to deposit the said amount in their head, which is online process. He further submitted that there is no provision to refund the said amount of Rs.5031/- to the complainant. But this Commission is not convinced with the above submission of the OPs, because, if someone had wrongly got deposited any amount, in the head of OPs, through online, then on coming to know the same, it was the duty of the OPs, being a Government Entity, to refund back the said amount to the complainant, but in the case in hand, the OPs did not do so, rather refused to refund the same to the complainant only by saying that there is no provision to refund back the said amount, which amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of OPs. Furthermore, from perusal of both challan i.e. Annexure C-5 and C-6, we found that both the challan were deposited in the same head i.e. Urban Estate: UE015, then how the OPs can cancel the first challan and accept the second challan being deposited by the complainant in the same head i.e. UE015, which is very surprising and also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. So, in this way, the OPs is liable to refund back the said amount of Rs.5031/-, to the complainant.

15.              The complainant has lastly submitted that the OPs had issued him No Dues Certificate on 05.03.2019 Mark-C, but they not issued the NOC to him, while all the necessary fees etc. were deposited and NOC file was got deposited on 24.12.2020 along with documents Annexure C-17, which was got deposited through Shri Bal Krishan, Architect, which was on the panel of OPs and expert in this regard and no question of deposit of file with less documents arise at all. He further submitted that he again deposited Rs.5900/- on 06.01.2021 Annexure C-17, as charges for next year, which were got deposited, under compulsion, due to negligence of OPs, hence he is entitled to refund Rs.5900/- along with interest as pr law. From Demand Note Details Annexure C-17, we found that the complainant deposited the compounding fees of Rs.19474/- on 24.12.2020 through Architect Bal Krishan Dhiman, but the OPs has raised objection on the same due to non-attaching of relevant documents, but it is pertinent to mention here that the said documents were duly checked by Architect Bal Krishan Dhiman, who is on the panel of OPs, then the question of less documents does not arise. Moreover, the complainant had deposited the documents with OPs along with requisite fees on 24.12.2020, then there was sufficient time with the OPs till 31.12.2020 to check the same and if there was any requirement of relevant documents, then to ask the complainant to provide the same within time, but the OPs did not do so, due to which the complainant was compelled to pay the extension fee of Rs.5900/- on 06.01.2021 Annexure C-16 for next year, which also amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of OPs. Hence, the OPs are also liable to refund back the said amount of Rs5900/-, to the complainant.

16.              So, keeping in view the above details facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs are liable to pay interest amount of Rs.66,893/- along with refund of Rs.5031/- and Rs.5900/-, total Rs.77,824/-. For their act of deficiency in service, the OPs are also liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-, to the complainant. In this way, the OPs are liable to pay total Rs.1,02,824/-, to the complainant.  

17.              Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay amount of Rs.77,824/- (66893 + 5031 + Rs.5900), along with compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-, total Rs.1,02,824/-, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days from today, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint, till its realization.

18.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:02.05.2024.                  

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, SSS.