District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.460/2020.
Date of Institution: 02.12.2020.
Date of Order: 11.01.2023.
Sudesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Singh R/o VPO Machhigarh, Tehsil-Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad (Hr.) Pin No. 121004.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Housing Board Haryana (through its Chairman) C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana – 134109.
2. The State of Haryana (through its Chief Secretary) R/O 4th floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Smt. Rachna, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Rana, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte vide order dated 15.02.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant registered for these applications through registration NO. 1594/FBD65/T-A/SBP after paying registration fee for an amount of Rs.2,13,000/- in terms of allotment letter 10% amount was to be paid with the applications. Opposite party NHo.1 sold these applications through various nationalized banks and the opposite party NO.1 left an option to pay the registration amount through any of these mentioned banks and the applicants who choose to pay through these banks was to bear interest @ 15% p.a. the complainant registered to the application for registration through State Bank of Patiala and took loan for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant, later, cleared this loan from arranging amount from friends and had to bear a heavy rate of interest. Opposite party No.1 through lucky draw held on 30.12.2014, allotted flat/apartment at Faridabad 2,62,75 VONV.INTO Sec-65 and acknowledge the complainant vide application dated 03.03.2015 and demanded 15% amount to be paid to the opposite party No.1. The complainant booked Type-A apartment having total sale consideration of Rs.21,40,000/- paid 15% amount of the total sale consideration, as demanded by the opposite party No.1, an amount of Rs.3,67,000/- vide demand draft dated 24.3.2015 drawn at State Bank of Patiala. After making the payments as and when asked by the opposite party No.1, the complainant visited at the site of the allotted apartment but till this time there was not even the construction material had been placed by the opposite parties. There was no construction started after getting the requisite payments from the complainant in the year 2014. The complainant from 2016 to 2020, enquired of the starting of construction of the flats in issue and the opposite party No.1 responded not to the query of the complainant. The complainant wrote the application dated 14.07.2018 to the opposite party No.1, which was duly received by the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party failed to reply and complied with the terms of the applications. . The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- paid by the complainant towards the total sale consideration of the apartment as per the allotment letter.
b) grant interest @ 20% p.a. from the respective dates when the complainant made payment of the isntalments to the opposite party No.1 till the realization of the decretal amount.
c) opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages in favour of the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, paying fraud and cheating on the complainant alongwith interest @ 20% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.
d) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
e) pay Rs. 1,00,000 /-as litigation expenses.
f) pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, towards the loss of opportunity that has been suffered by the complainant as in this opportunity the complainant could have purchased a suitable house for himself.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the answering opposite party was allotted the land measuring 7.5 acre vide Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad memo No. 12641-43 dt. 19.06.2014, Sector-65, Faridabad for the construction of multi-storeyed flats for defence personnel. It was submitted that according the possession of the land was handed over by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad memo NO. 1169 datead 24.06.2014 and at the time of possession there was a Gas Godown building on he said land, which was pointed out the HUDA authorities to which they replied that the Gas Godown should be dismantled and removed and the site should be free from all encumbrances. On 11.07.2014 Godown was demolished by HUDA and 80% of the marlba was also removed from the site. It was also assured by the Junior engineer HUDA that the rest of the Malba should be removed from the site within two days. Which was not removed afterwards. It was submitted that the owner of the Bharat Gas Godown went to the Hon’ble High Court against the demolition of Gas Godown by the HUDA through (CWP No. 11037 of 2014. The Hon’ble High Court on 14.07.2014 granted the stay to maintain the status quo by both the parties. The Hon’ble Court issued an interim order dated 07.10.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the appropriates authority within two months while maintaining the status quo between the parties. The matter was disposed off on 07.102015 in CWP 6924 of 2014 by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the writ petitions before the appropriate authority. It was further submitted that the office of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Faridabad had been in regular tough with HUDA for solving the matter. The Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad vide office letter NO. 5347 dated 05.12.2016 had asked Estate Officer HUDA, Faridabad for an early settlement of the case. Again the Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad vide office letter NO. 5384 dated 09.12.2016 to the Senior Town Planner, Faridabad had requested for revised Zoning of the group housing site. It was further submitted that the Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad had gain requested to Administrator HUDA, Faridabad vide office letter NO. 1752 dated 18.04.2017 to give the revised possession of group housing land measuring 7.50 acre n Sector-65, Faridabad after division of land in 2 pockets i.e G.H-1 & GH-2, and leaving the disputed/stayed land approx 1000 sq. yards encroached by M/s. Bharat Gas Godown. It was further submitted that ATP Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula vide office letter NO. 2355 dated 17.04.2017 addressed to the Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad had intimated that the competent authority of Housing Board had accorded the approval to give the consent regarding revised possession of clear undisputed land in 2 pockets. It was further submitted that Administrator HUDA, Faridabad vide office letter NO. 3480 dated 12.05.2017 addressed to the Chief Administrator HUDA (Town Planning Wing) Panchkula sent Zoning Plans of two pockets of GH set as GH site N.1 to GH site No.2 alongwith the proceeding of Zonal committee meeting for final decision from competent authority. From12.05.2017 till ow the case for approval of revised zoning plan was still lying with the Chief Administrator HUDA Panchkula. Despite issuing several reminders form the Executive Engineer, HBH, Faridabad and CTP HBH Panchkula to Administrator HUDA Faridabad and Chief Administrator HUDA Panchkula for approving the revised zoning plan of the sites of GH-1 to GH-2, Sector-65 Faridabad. Now the department had approved the revised zoning plan vide his letter NO. 140660 dated 12.07.2018 but not got stay vacated from the Hon’ble High Court. So this office was completely helpless to start the construction work until the above formalities were completed by HUDA. The drawings were submitted to Estate Officer, Faridabad for approval. The matter was still pending with STP office, Faridabad for approval due to set back adjustment as per height. Thus, this office was helpless to start the work.
Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.2.2022.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Housing Board Haryana and Anr. with the prayer to: a) refund the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- paid by the complainant towards the total sale consideration of the apartment as per the allotment letter. b) grant interest @ 20% p.a. from the respective dates when the complainant made payment of the installments to the opposite party No.1 till the realization of the decretal amount. c) opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages in favour of the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, paying fraud and cheating on the complainant alongwith interest @ 20% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. d) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . e) pay Rs. 1,00,000 /-as litigation expenses. f) pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, towards the loss of opportunity that has been suffered by the complainant as in this opportunity the complainant could have purchased a suitable house for himself.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW`1/5 – affidavit of Sudesh Kumar,, Ex.CW1/1 - application form, Ex.CW1/2 – NOC from the State Bank of India, Ex.CW1/3 – letter dated 03.03.2015,, Ex.CW1/4 – photocopy of demand draft.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of R.A.Gautam, Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 - Application form, Ex.R-2 - order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Ex.R-3 – letter dated 12.05.2017 regarding approval of construction of flats for Dense Person, Sector-65, Faridabad.
7. 7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that as per Housing Board Policy, the deposit of unsuccessful applicants in the draw of lots will be refunded in full and will pay interest @ 5.5%
p.a. for delay in draw beyond six months.
8. While taking a cue from the refund policy, the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant, jointly & severally, Rs.5,88,000/- alongwith interest @ 5.5.% p.a. from the date the last deposit was made . Opposite parties are at liberty to deduct the money from the deposited money as per refund policy of the Housing Board. There are no orders as to other costs. The complaint is allowed to the aforementioned extent only. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 11.01.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
