BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 34 of 2021.                                                                          

                                                               Date of Institution :    12.03.2021

                                                          Date of Decision   :    20.10.2022.

Dalip Chand, aged 65 years, son of Shri Shanker Ram, resident of House No. 54, Block No.2, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.                                                                                                                                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.

2. Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Hisar, District Hisar.

3. Estate Officer, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                                                          ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.     

          SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. K.K. Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.       In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an allottee in respect of Plot No. 245 measuring 6 marlas in Sector 20 Part-1 HUDA, Sirsa. The complainant got sanctioned site plan of this plot from the ops as per rules and thereafter got raised construction of his residential house, which was completed on 31.07.1993. Thereafter, he applied for issuance of completion certificate in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa on 5.8.1993. That the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar vide his office memo No. 16578 dated 14.11.2017 had decided the date of completion of construction of his plot as 1993 and further directed Estate Officer, HUDA not to charge the extension fee after 31.12.1993. It is further averred that in 2016, HUDA/ ops adopted a policy providing one time opportunity to all allottees of Mandi Township/ HUDA Estate, who occupied the buildings without obtaining the valid occupation certificate and also waiving of extension fee beyond the actual date of completion. The op no.1 issued a letter No. UB-A-6-2016/46612-13 dated 11.8.2016 in this regard and complainant obtained the copy of this letter under RTI Act. In this letter, it was also mentioned that in the past HUDA had formulated policy guidelines on the subject in the year 2004 which remained in force till the year 2014 and that HUDA has found that there still remain a considerable number of allottees who have been occupying the building without having a valid occupation certificate and in order to accommodate such allottees, the above policy dated 11.8.2016 was adopted by the HUDA. It is further averred that ops did not decide the request of complainant for occupying the house, so on 17.11.2016, the complainant wrote a letter to op no.3. However, the complainant was issued occupation certificate by ops vide memo no.20003/EO009/UE017/OCCER/0000000256 dated 12.1.2018. That in the meantime, in November, 2016, the complainant was informed by the office of op no.3 through telephone to deposit a sum of Rs.11,500/- as processing fee in view of policy of 2004. The complainant deposited the same with the office of op no.3 on 28.11.2016. But thereafter the op no.3 vide its office memo no. 581 dated 22.3.2018 refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant out of aforesaid amount of Rs.11,500/-.

3.       It is further averred that again in December, 2018, the complainant was required by ops to deposit another amount of Rs.11,800/- towards processing fee, which was deposited by the complainant on 19.12.2018 under protest. That since occupation certificate applied by complainant on 5.8.1993 was issued by ops on 12.1.2018, so complainant was not liable to pay any processing fee to the ops and in this manner, a sum of Rs.13,300/- has been got deposited by ops from complainant unnecessarily and without any reasonable cause and justification. Thus, the complainant is entitled to refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,300/- from ops alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization of the same. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops and requested them by way of written application dated 17.11.2020 to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,300/- to him but of no use. Prior to it, the complainant had moved an application on CM Window on 5.3.2020 but the same was disposed of behind his back on 20.8.2020. Now, a week back, the ops have refused to admit the claim of complainant and as such they have been indulged in unfair trade practice and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby have put him to unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.

4.       On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that complainant made a request for refund of amount of Rs.13,300/- and answering ops duly replied the same vide letter No. 181860 dated 7.10.2019 and reply was sent to the complainant through different letters dated 5.11.2019, 27.11.2019, 6.12.2019, 23.12.2019 and 6.1.2020. It is further submitted that answering ops inadvertently and mistakenly refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The above noted amount was processing fee for waiting off extension fee. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that answering ops have got deposited a sum of Rs.13,300/- from complainant unnecessarily. In fact it is necessary to mention here that vide letter no. 181860 dated 7.10.2019 the complainant was duly informed by answering ops that an amount of Rs.11,800/- (Rs.10,000/- + 1800 GST) were got deposited from the complainant for exemption of extension fee. Administrator, HUDA Hisar vide its letter No. 16572 dated 14.11.2017 had directed not to charge any such extension fee from 31.12.1993. Hence, the above amount deposited by the complainant is qua the processing fee for exemption of extension fee and same is not at all returnable/ refundable to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made. 

5.       Complainant has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19.

6.       On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaiveer Yadav, Estate Officer as Ex. R1.

7.       We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the ops and have perused the case file carefully.

8.       The record reveals that complainant in order to get completion certificate of his constructed house over the plot No. 245 written a letter to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa on 5.8.1993 and copy of the same is placed on file by complainant as Ex.C4. In the said letter, it was requested by complainant to the Estate Officer of the ops to issue completion certificate as the construction of the house was completed on 31.07.1993. In this regard, Sh. O.P. Madan, Surveyor/ Assessor in his certificate dated 1.8.1993 also certified that building construction at plot no. 245 of Sh. Dalip Chand i.e. complainant has been completed in all respects. The Administrator, HUDA, Hisar vide its letter bearing Memo No. 16578 dated 14.11.2017 written to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa (Ex.C6) clearly stated that aforesaid house had been constructed in the year 1993, therefore, in view of the instructions issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula dated 10.9.2014, 11.8.2016 and 19.1.2017, it has been decided that extension fees of aforesaid plot may not be charged after 31.12.1993. Since the house of complainant was completed in year 1993 and he already applied for completion certificate on 1.8.1993, therefore, complainant was not liable to pay any extension fee which has been charged by ops from the complainant. Earlier fee of Rs.10,000/- charged from the complainant was refunded to the complainant by Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa vide letter bearing Memo No. 591 dated 22.3.2018 but again extension fee of Rs.11,800/- was got deposited by ops from the complainant on 19.12.2018. The ops have not placed on file any rules or regulations vide which they charged the extension fee from the complainant. Since complainant had completed his house in 1993 over his plot, therefore, charging of extension fee or processing fee for waiving extension fee has been wrongly charged by ops from the complainant. The processing fee was to be paid by the defaulters who had not completed construction over their plots within stipulated period whereas complainant had completed his construction in 1993 and Administrator, HUDA, Hisar had already written to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa not to charge any extension fees/ processing fees from the complainant and therefore, complainant was not under any liability to pay any processing fee for waiving of extension fee or any extension fee as alleged by ops and the ops have wrongly averred that this amount was processing fee for waiving off extension fee. Rather it is proved on record that complainant applied for occupation certificate to the ops in time and thereafter complainant also made correspondence to the ops in this regard but ops took time in deciding the request of complainant and issued occupation certificate only on 12.01.2018 after delay and therefore, complainant cannot penalized for delay caused by ops. Therefore, ops were not justified in charging any extension fee/ processing fee for waiving of extension fee from the complainant.  Moreover, ops have not placed on file any document in support of their version. So, we are of the considered view that ops have wrongly and illegally charged the above said amounts from the complainant and have caused harassment to the complainant. Therefore, ops are liable to refund the amount of Rs.13,300/- to the complainant besides payment of compensation for harassment and mental agony.

9.        Keeping in view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.13,300/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 12.03.2021 till realization of this amount. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and further to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are directed to comply this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to initiate proceedings under Sections 71/72 of the Act against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced :                            Member      Member                          President,

Dated: 20.10.2022.                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Commission, Sirsa.