DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001
Consumer Complaint No: 161 of 2015 Date of Institution: 03.04.2015 Date of Decision: 01.02.2016.
Suprabha Dahiya w/o Sh. S.B.Dahiya, R/o H.No.2471, Sector 1, Rohtak (Haryana)
……Complainant.
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula.
Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-14, Gurgaon.
Estate Officer-II, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-34, Gurgaon.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Mannu Jain, Adv for the complainant.
Shri Vivek Verma, Adv for the opposite parties
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that initially she was allotted plot bearing No.2250 Sector 57, Gurgaon measuring 1 Kanal by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.80 dated 14.01.2005 and she has deposited the entire amount of installments of the said plot as per schedule. The complainant has further alleged that opposite parties had issued letter knowing well that the opposite parties were neither owner nor in possession of the land of plot No.2250. The opposite parties even demanded enhanced compensation for Plot No.2250 amounting to Rs.28,19,422/- vide letter dated 02.01.2013. The complainant requested the opposite parties several times to deliver the possession of Plot No.2250, Sector 57, Gurgaon but the possession could not be delivered to the complainant and thus, the complainant could not construct the house over the said plot while the cost of construction has escalated very high. It is further alleged that the opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant vide which alternate plot No.1376 Sector 51, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainant which was not similarly situated and the same was not accepted by the complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2014. It is further alleged that the opposite party No.3 recommended to the opposite party No.2 vide letter bearing Memo No.9461 dated 19.08.2014 to allot an alternative plot to the complainant out of the plots mentioned in the recommendation of OP-3. OP-2 has also recommended to the OP-1 to allot an alternative plot to the complainant vide Memo No.14762 dated 26.09.2014 out of the plots mentioned in the said letter but so far the OP has not acted upon the said recommendation despite several requests and demands and as such the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
2 In support of her allegations the complainant has filed her affidavit and has also produced on record initial allotment letter dated 14.01.2005 (Ex.C-1), copy of letter dated 02.01.2013 regarding enhancement (Ex.C-2), letter written by complainant to the OP-3 on 07.07.2014 (Ex.C-3), copy of letter bearing Memo No.9461 dated 19.08.2014 sent by OP-3 to OP-2 (Ex.C-4) and letter bearing Memo 14762 dated 26.09.2014 sent by OP-2 to OP-1(Ex.C-5).
3 OPs in their joint written reply have alleged that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation and the same has been filed on false and frivolous grounds. OPs have denied that initially plot which was allotted to the complainant was under litigation and as such the opposite parties were not in a position to hand over the possession of the same. Plot No.2250 Sector 57, Gurgaon came under litigation later on. Infact, opposite parties offered the complainant an alternative plot in place of Plot No.2250 Sector 57, Gurgaon but the complainant refused to accept the alternative plot which was offered to the complainant in Sector 51, Gurgaon. As per decision of Head Quarters, draw for allotment of alternate plots was held on 17.02.2014 and as a result of mini draw Plot No.1376, Sector 51, Gurgaon was exchanged in lieu of disputed plot No.2250, Sector 57, Gurgaon vide Memo No.7645 dated 04.07.2014 as per the policy of the HUDA but the complainant refused to accept the same of her own sweet will. The complainant has no right to pick and choose the alternate plot in place of the allotted plot. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that she was allotted Plot No.2250 Sector 57, Gurgaon measuring 1 Kanal by the OP vide Memo No.80 dated 14.01.2015 (Ex.C-1) and the complainant deposited the entire amount as per schedule. The complainant has alleged that OP had issued letter knowing well that they were neither owner nor in possession of Plot No.2250, Sector 57, Gurgaon but when the complainant sought possession of the same then the possession could not be delivered to the complainant. However, OP sent letter vide which alternative plot No.1376 Sector 51, Gurgaon was allotted but the said plot was not similarly situated and the same was not acceptable by the complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2014. It was pointed out that OP-3 recommended OP-2 vide letter dated 19.08.2014 to allot to the complainant out of several plots mentioned in the said letter which were lying vacant and thereafter OP-2 recommended OP-1 to allot alternative plot to the complainant vide letter dated 26.09.2014 out of the plots mentioned in the recommendation of OP-3 but so far the opposite party has not acted upon the said recommendations despite several requests and demands and thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant in viewe of othe law laid down in Pushpa Goel Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority II(2015) CPJ 46 (NC) as well as Balak Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors in IA No.5 & 6 in Civil Appeal No.7061/1996 decided on 21.11.2011 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5 However, as per the contention of the OPs, the complaint was barred by limitation and the same has been filed on false and frivolous grounds. The original plot came under litigation later on and as such the possession of the said plot could not be delivered to the complainant. However, later on alternative plot bearing No.1376 Sector 51, Gurgaon was exchanged to the complainant in lieu of original allotted plot as per HUDA Policy through mini draw of lots but the complainant refused to accept the alternative plot No.1376, Sector 51, Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also contended that complainant has no right to seek allotment of alternative plot out of her own sweet-will rather the alternative plot was liable to be allotted in view of the Policy through mini draw of lots and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
6 Therefore after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that there is no dispute that originally the opposite parties allotted plot No.2250 Sector 57, Gurgaon measuring 1 Kanal vide allotment letter No.80 dated 14.01.2005 and thereafter when the said plot went in litigation then alternative plot No.1376 in Sector 51, Gurgaon was exchanged to the complainant but as per allegations of the complainant the said alternative plot was not similarly situated as it was disadvantageous to the complainant and that is why the complainant has not accepted the said offer and as such the opposite parties were deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7 It is pertinent to mention here that OP-3 had written to OP-2 letter Ex.C-4 in which several vacant plots have been mentioned for allotment to the complainant in lieu of disputed plot No.2250, Sector 57/1376 Sector 51, Gurgaon and thereafter OP-2 vide letter dated 26.09.2014 recommended the allotment of alternate plot to the complainant in lieu of original Plot No.2250 Sector 57, Gurgaon/Alternate Plot No.1376 Sector 51, Gurgaon but so far the opposite party has not taken any action despite the recommendations of OP-2 & OP-3 which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8 Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to allot suitable plot from amongst the plots as alternate plot which have been recommended by OP-2 & OP-3 at sector rate along with enhancement. It is further ordered that if the amount of the allotted plot is more than the amount paid by the complainant then opposite parties shall be entitled to recover the same along with interest from the date of offer of possession of alternate plot as per the HUDA Policy and if the sector rate of the allotted plot is less than the amount deposited by the complainant then the opposite parties shall refund the same with interest at the rate which the HUDA is charging. The complainant is also held entitled to claim interest as per rates of the HUDA Policy on each deposit from the date of respective deposits till offer of alternative plot. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The opposite parties shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
01.02.2016 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
