Haryana

Panchkula

CC/302/2019

R.C MAHAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN. - Opp.Party(s)

R.C MAHAJAN

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No.	:	302 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	03.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	19.12.2022

 

 

R.C.Mahajan, son of Sh. S.N.Mahajan, resident of 32, Sukh Enclave, New Officer’s Colony, Patiala(Punjab).

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula-134109

2.     Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula through its Estate Officer, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula-134109

.….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 (AS AMENDED UPTO DATE)

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for OPs alongwith Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Accountant, HSVP.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.            The brief facts of the present complaint are that a plot no.1110, Sector-26, Panchkula extension was purchased by the complainant and accordingly, the re-allotment letter no.13262 dated 29.08.2005 was issued in his favour by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula; the occupancy certificate no.8438 dated 27.09.2012 was issued after raising of construction at the said plot upto 25% of the permissible limit. It is stated that HSVP, Panchkula launched One Time Settlement Scheme(hereinafter referred as to OTSS) vide No.HSVP Adm(HQ)-2018/92022-23 dated 07.05.2018 only for two months w.e.f. 15.05.2018 so as to make recovery of additional price on account of Enhancement from the allottees; a rebate of 40% was offered to allottees in the additional price pertaining to Enhancement vide said  scheme. It is averred that the complainant had opted the said scheme and paid a sum of Rs.1,08,950/- online on 18.06.2018 vide challan generated from the site of OPs.  It is alleged that full and final payment was made by the complainant as per said scheme and the outstanding amount on the challan generated from the site was shown as nil. Further, a sum of Rs.13,291/- qua additional price on account of enhancement was paid by the complainant under protest on 03.07.2019.  It is alleged that all plot-holders were required to complete construction on the plots upto 50% of the permissible limit within 2 years as per notice issued by the Ops on 10.05.2017; as per said notice occupation certificate was required to be obtained March 2019 otherwise heavy penalty was liable to be imposed; the complainant submitted revised building plan which was approved by HSVP, Panchkula vide letter dated 29.09.2018. It is alleged that occupation certificate was not granted on the ground that some amount of additional price on account of enhancement was outstanding towards the complainant.  A letter no.630 dated 28.01.2019 was issued by the Ops asking the complainant to pay the enhancement dues of Rs. 2.43 lakhs third time against the above plot despite the fact that full and final payment of Rs.1,08,950/- as per said scheme had already been made by the complainant on 18.06.2018; he made detailed representation to the OPs No.1 & 2 along with all documents on 22.01.2019 & 12.02.2019 respectively but to no effect. The OP No.2 issued a letter no.953 dated 11.03.2019 to him that the challan generated through their PPM System under OTSS was having technical fault. The complainant issued legal notice u/s 80C.P.C. 1908 to OPs No.1 & 2 vide letter dated 12.04.2018 to review and set aside letter dated 11.03.2019; the OPs replied the legal notice vide letter dated 01.05.2019 which is not based upon the record. Due to the act and conduct of OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss, mental agony and harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being frivolous and baseless; the complainant being re-allottee is not the consumer of the Ops; no locus standi; time barred; no cause of action and no jurisdiction. It is submitted that the complainant has not generated the challan of 40% rebate on full enhanced compensation. It is stated that the Plot no.1110, Sector-26 Panchkula was allotted in favour of the complainant vide re-allotment letter dated29.08.2005. Every allottee has been provided username ID and password to check his account statement online on the site of HSVP. It is clearly mentioned below the account statement that “The above data is subject to audit, in case of any discrepancy, contact the concerned Estate Office”. It is averred that an enhancement notice was issued to the complainant for the payment of Rs.4,25,348/- vide memo no.ZO004/ EO012/UE020/DELET/0000000788 dated 24.05.2018. Under the OTSS  Scheme  the 60% of above amount comes to Rs.2,55,209/- as full and final settlement of enhanced compensation payable and mistakenly the system  computer  showed an amount of Rs.1,08,950/- to be paid as 60% amount but the complainant even having the knowledge of actual amount to be paid conveyed vide notice dated 24.05.2018, deposited an amount of Rs.1,08,950/- on 18.06.2018 which was very much less as compared to the actual payable amount and this simple calculation was very well in the knowledge/notice of the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant again deposited a sum of Rs.13,291/- on 03.07.2018 without any logic and without any notice from the OPs. The OPs has intimated to the complainant vide memo no.953 dated 11.03.2019 that less amount was deposited by him but the complainant tried to escape the liability which is pending against him. It is submitted that as on date, an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- is still pending on account of enhanced compensation for fully paid. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             Replication to the written statement of the OPs was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-16 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-7 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for OPs and gone through the record available on file including written arguments/additional written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

6.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also his affidavit Annexure C-A, written arguments/additional submissions placed on record on 07.04.2022, 22.06.2022 and 15.11.2022 has contended that he had opted to avail the benefits under OTSS by paying a sum of Rs.1,08,950/- on 18.06.2018 through challan generated from the website of OPs and accordingly additional payment pertaining to enhancement was shown as nil as per challan generated vide OP’s site.  It is vehemently contended that he had made the full and final settlement as per the provisions of said scheme i.e. OTSS and thus, the act of the OPs showing the outstanding amount towards additional payment pertaining to enhancement is not valid and justified. It is asserted that the complainant cannot be deprived of the benefits as had accrued to him under said scheme. Concluding the arguments, it is contended that the OPs cannot be permitted to draw any kind of benefit out of their own mistakes/wrong and thus, complaint may be accepted by granting the relief as prayed for in the present complaint    

7.             The OPs have resisted the complaint by taking several preliminary objections as well as on merits in their written statement. The OPs have taken the plea that the complainant being re-allottee does not fall under the category of consumer.

                This objection is rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Charanjeet Singh(Civil Appeal No.7042 of 2019. D/d 22.07.2021)SC,  wherein it is held that re-allottee enters into the shoes of the original allottee and thus, the complainant is entitled to claim the relief under the CP Act,2019.

                The next objection is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.

                This objection is also rejected in the light of the fact that the complainant is the owner of plot no.1110, Sector-26, Panchkula vide re-allotment letter dated 29.08.2005.

                The next plea is that the complaint is time barred. This objection is also dismissed as the complaint is filed within the prescribed period of two years from the issue of letter dated 24.05.2018, wherein an additional demand on account of enhancement was made by the OPs.

8.             On merits, the complaint is contested on the ground that every plot holder has been issued user ID and password to check his account online on the website of HSVP and thus, the complainant could have checked his outstanding amount under the head of additional price on account of enhancement. The learned counsel reiterating the averments made in the written statement has contended that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 24.05.2018 about the total enhanced price i.e. Rs.4,25,318/- and thus, after availing  a discount of 40% under the OTSS, a sum of Rs.2,55,209/- was to be deposited by him in lieu of full and final settlement of additional price on account  enhancement. It is contended that a sum of Rs.1,08,950/- was wrongly shown in the generated challan due to technical fault in the system. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the complainant is bound to deposit the additional price of plot on account of enhancement as he had failed to deposit the outstanding amount under the said OTSS within time.

9.             Pertinently, the said scheme, namely, OTSS was launched by HSVP with the twin objective i.e. to reduce the litigations and to make speedy recovery of the outstanding dues from the plot-holders on account of enhancement price. As per said scheme, a rebate of 40% in the additional price pertaining to enhancement was given/assured to those plot holders, who would opt to avail the benefits under the scheme between 15.05.2018 to 16.07.2018. It is undisputed that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,08,950/- under said scheme as per the challan generated vide Ops website. Undoubtedly, the controversy in the present complaint has resulted from the improper and inadequate functioning of OPs while implementing the said OTSS and thus, the OPs themselves are responsible for defeating the objectives for which the said scheme was launched.

10.            Now, the question arises whether the full and final settlement of outstanding enhanced price qua plot no.1110, Sector-26 of the complainant has been made as per said scheme. Undisputedly, the acquisition cost of land was enhanced by the Court i.e. Rs.3068.89 per sq.mtr and accordingly, an amount of Rs.4,25,348/- was demanded from the complainant vide letter dated 24.05.2018(Annexure R-2).

11.            The complainant has admitted that the said letter was received by him but it is claimed that bifurcation/break-up of the demanded sum of Rs. 4,25,348/- into 40% amount or/60% amount in pursuance of OTSS were not given.

12.            The plea taken by the complainant is not tenable as none can be permitted to disown his/her liability to pay the price of the plot.  It is not in dispute that the sum of Rs.4,25,348/- as demanded by OPs vide said letter dated 24.05.2018 was towards the price of the plot  and the said demand was raised in consonance with the condition no.9 & 3 of the allotment/reallotment letter respectively. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that he was being discriminated by OPs while demanding the amount of Rs.4,25,348/- vide letter dated 24.05.2018. It is also not the case of the complainant that different yardsticks were applied by adopting a pick and chose policy by the OPs while recovering the additional price on account of the enhancement. Admittedly, a uniform policy was adopted by OPs while raising the demand qua enhancement price. Moreover, the complainant having the user ID and password could easily have cross checked his liability by looking into the account statement. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed on the part of OPs while not giving bifurcation /breakup  of sum of Rs.4,25,348/- vide letter dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure R-2). Admittedly, a sum of Rs.1,22,241(108950+13291) has been paid by the complainant  out of Rs. 2,55,209/-, which is 60% of the enhanced price i.e. Rs. 4,25,348/-;  as such, a sum of Rs.1,32,968/- is still outstanding qua the enhanced price.

13.            Now, the next question arises whether the Op’s act in forfeiting and denying the benefits which had accrued in favour of the complainant under said scheme is valid and justified. As stated earlier, a sum of Rs.1,08,950/- was deposited by the complainant within the stipulated period as per the challan generated vide OP’s website. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the contents of said challan(Annexure C-2) are reproduced as under:-

1. Enhancement Amount for Fully Paid(A+B)            Rs.181584.00

1. Current Outstanding                                    Rs.0.00

1. Principal                                              Rs.0.00
2. Interest                                              Rs.0.00
3. Delay Interest                                      Rs.0.00

2. Total Principal Amount Due                           Rs.181584.00

2. Amount to be paid after 40% Rebate                 
3.  

 

14.            Pertinently, after making the deposits of sum of Rs.1,08950/- under the said OTSS by the complainant, the outstanding amount was shown as zero  as per challan generated vide ops website.  For the sake of clarity and convenience, the contents of said challan(Annexure C-4) are reproduced as under:-

1. Enhancement Amount for Fully Paid(A+B)                     Rs.0.00

1. Current Outstanding                                             Rs.0.00

1. Principal                                                    Rs.0.00
2. Interest                                                    Rs.0.00
3. Delay Interest                                            Rs.0.00

2. Total Principal Amount Due                                    Rs.0.00

2. Amount to be paid after 40% Rebate
3.  

 

15.            Apart from above, a sum of Rs.13,291/- was deposited by the complainant on 13.07.2019 as per challan generated from Ops website. As such it is crystal clear that the complainant intending to avail the benefits under the said scheme had opted to clear his outstanding dues qua enhancement price within the prescribed period under OTSS, so the right of the complainant to the benefits as accrued to him under the scheme can neither be forfeited nor can be denied to him as no fault or lapses can be attributed on the part of the complainant. The Ops have admitted vide letter no.953 dated 11.03.2019 Annexure C-13 that a less amount was shown in the challan due to technical fault in the PPM system i.e. plot and property management software. Therefore, the lapses, negligence and deficiencies is entirely attributable qua the functioning of the Ops, which had led to the technical fault in their plot and property management system. Needless to mention here that the complainant’s right under the said scheme cannot be allowed to be defeated or forfeited on the basis of technical fault in the system or/mistake on the part of the OPs. Therefore, we hold that the right of the complainant, which had accrued to him under the said scheme qua settlement of outstanding enhancement price, still survives. Resultantly the notice issued by the OPs to the complainant asking him to pay an higher amount forfeiting his right under said scheme are quashed being invalid and illegal.

16.            In the totality of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, the complaint is partly allowed. In our considered opinion, it would be proper, reasonable and fair, if the complainant is directed to make the balance payment of Rs.1,32,968/- qua enhanced price and  accordingly, the complainant is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,32,968/- qua enhanced price within  a period  of 60 days, from  the receipt of copy of this order, and the OPs are directed to accept the said payment without any objections as full and final settlement qua additional price on account of enhancement. The Ops are also directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and litigations charges within 45 days from the deposit of balance amount of Rs.1,32,968/- by the complainant.  

16.             The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order as directed above failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 19.12.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                       

                                          Satpal,                             

                                        President