Haryana

StateCommission

CC/26/2020

SATYA PAL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSVP - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 Consumer complaint No.26 of 2020

 Date of Instituion:27.01.2020

                Date of order:04.05.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2020

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Satya Pal Gupta S/o Late Sh.Devi Chand Gupta, R/o H.No. BM-142  (West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110088.

                                                                                      .….Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Chief Administrator, HSVP Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.      Administrator, HSVP Sector-14, Gurugram.

3.      Estate Officer -II, HSvP, Sector-34, Gurugram.

.….Opposite parties

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Satya Pal Gupta complainant in person.

                   Ms. Anju Saini, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Briefly stated, facts of the case as per the complaint are that Sh. Satya Pal Gupta was allotted a residential plot No.1769, Sector-57, Gurugram measuring 220 sq. meters by opposite parties as per allotment letter No.793 dated 04.02.2005.   The tentative price of the plot was Rs. 924000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.1,38,600/- within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter alongwith an amount of Rs.92400/- which was paid with the application form jointly comprising of 25% of the total tentative price.  The complainant deposited Rs.1,38,600/- vide receipt No.39167 dated 02.03.2005. The balance amount was to be deposited either within 60 days without any interest from the date of issue of allotment letter by way of six annual installments with interest. It was also agreed that the interest shall accrue from the date of offer of possession. In total, the complainant paid Rs.9,24,000/- as mentioned below:-

 

Sr. No.	Amount	Date of Deposit
1	92400/-	10.03.2004 with application form
2	1,38,600/-	02.03.2005 vide receipt  No.39167
3	1,15,500/-	14.02.2006 vide receipt No.26658
4	1,15,500/-	14.02.2007 vide receipt No.30350
5	2,31,000/-	07.12.2009 vide receipt No.9124
6	2,30,010/-	18.04.2011 vide receipt No.562-563

 The Ops should have given possession of the allotted plots within a reasonable period of 2/3 years or at least within 4 years from the date of allotment, but possession was not given within the stipulated time.  The complainant requested the OPs to give possession of the plot, however EO-II HUDA Gurgaon informed vide letter No.157 dated  12.03.2010 that offer of possession  in some pockets of Sector 57 Gurgaon could not be given due to incomplete development works and same would be given on completion of development works without any further delay.   The HUDA authorities have failed to offer possession of the plot in question despite regular follow up, yet a demand of Rs.14,76,840/- towards enhancement charged was raised, which was paid under protest to avoid heavy interest.  He requested the Ops to hand over the possession of the plot and waive off the enhancement charges but  no action was taken. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in November 2017 dismissed the writ petitions of landowners and directed HUDA to give possession to owners who were allotted plots many years ago but could not get its custody due to litigation.  However Ops  again demanded Rs.6,32,864/- as interest before getting possession, which was also paid  under protest. The claimant filed application dated 05.02.2018 seeking refund of the same alongwith interest @ 15% PA.  It was further alleged that possession of the plot was given by EO HUDA, Gurgaon on 01.02.2018 i.e. after about 13, years, which was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The complainant also demanded interest on the payment made by the complainant due to delay in handing over the possession of the said plot. Thus there being gross deficiency in service  on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint

2.      Upon notice to the OPs, later filed reply raising preliminary objections of the  complaint being time barred, complainant not to be treated as consumer, concealment of material facts, his abusing the process of law etc. and requested to dismiss the complaint.

          On merits, it was alleged that as per condition No.7 of the allotment letter dated 04.02.2005, it was categorically mentioned that the possession of the plot will be offered within the prescribed period of three years from the date of allotment otherwise, HUDA will pay interest @ 9% (or as may be fixed by authority from time to time) on the amount deposited by the allottee after expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession which will only start after the possession of the plot is offered. The possession of the plot in question was offered on 24.12.2017  followed by issuance of possession certificate on 01.02.2018.   Further it was submitted that after completion of development work offer of possession was offered  on 24.12.2017 otherwise this development has no concern with payment of enhancement charges which were payable as per condition No.9 of allotment dated 04.02.2005. However it was also submitted that as per HSVP policy 2007, payment of delay possession interest shall be applicable to only those cases where allotment was made after 25.01.2007 but in the present case the allotment was made on 04.02.2005 and the same was duly informed to the complainant vide memo No.4926 dated 26.07.2019. Therefore complainant is not entitled for delayed interest and waiver of enhancement charges. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant in person in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CA vide which he reiterated all the averments of the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26 and closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, O.Ps. have tendered an affidavits of Mr.Jitender Kumar, Estate Officer-II, HSVP, Gurugram as Ex.OP/A  and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                These arguments have been advanced by Mr.Satya Pal Gupta complainant in person  and Ms. Anju Saini, learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever material was led during the proceedings of the complaint has been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment raised in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the OPs, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled for interest @ 18% on his respective deposits  till handing over possession i.e. on 01.02.2018 or till its refund and also the refund of Rs.6,32,864/-  which as per him has illegally been charged by Ops alongwith interest @ 18% PA? 

7.                While unfolding his contention, it has been argued by Satya Pal Gupta complainant in person that a residential plot bearing No.1769, Secor-57, Gurugram was allotted to him way back in the year 2005, whereas the possession of the plot in question was given to him on 01.12.2018.  As per terms  and conditions of the allotment letter dated  04.02.2005, the Ops should have given possession of the plot within a period of three years.   The complainant has been paying the installments regularly alongwith interest and enhancement charges under protest. Therefore complainant is rightfully entitled for the interest on his deposited amount being delayed possession and  to refund Rs.6,32,864/-, which was illegally charged by Ops alongwith interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

8.                On the other hand, it was argued by Ms.Anju Saini, learned counsel for the O.Ps. that complainant has not paid various installments as per the payment schedule.  There has been a delay in making the payment of the annual installment amounts.  It is true that the allotment letter spells out all the terms and conditions governing allotment of the plot and provision for payment of the installments, charging the interest for delayed payment and delivery of possession.  However as there were certain unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the O.Ps. for which the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainants within stipulated time.  It was further argued that the possession of the plot in question was offered on 24.12.2017 and possession certificate was issued on 01.02.2018 to him.   It was further argued that it was only after completion of development work that offer of possession was offered  on 24.12.2017.  The offer of possession has no concern with payment of enhancement charges which was payable as per condition No.9 of allotment dated 04.02.2005. However it was submitted that as per HSVP policy 2007, payment of delayed possession interest was made applicable only in cases where allotment was made after 25.01.2007 but in the present case the allotment was made on 04.02.2005 so complainant was not entitled for and same has been informed to the complainant vide memo No.4926 dated 26.07.2019. Thus, the complainant was not entitled for the delayed possession interest and waiver of Rs.6,32,864/- alongwith interest as prayed for because he tendered installments much after due dates.

9.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that  a residential plot No.1769 Sector 57,Gurugram measuring 220 sq. meters was allotted to the complainant by opposite parties vide letter NO.793 dated 04.02.2005.  It is also not disputed that due to some litigation between the owners of the acquired land and that of OPs before Hon’ble High court wherein OPs were restrained from offering possession to various allottees that the needful could not be done by OPs and finally when the said litigation came to an end in the month of November 2017 then immediately on the ensuing month of December 2017 offer of possession was made. Moreover some portion of the pocket was not developed and possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2017.  Further it was also agreed that allottee will have to bear the enhancement charges of any such thing happen at the instance of the courts. As per condition No.9 of allotment dated 04.02.2005 all this was duly informed to complainant vide memo No.4926 of 26.07.2019 as well.  Since, as per HSVP policy, 2007, the complainant is not entitled for delayed possession interest.   Even otherwise, the complainant is not entitled for refund or waiver of sum of Rs.6,32,864/- as he has always paid the instalment amount as well as interest as demanded by the Ops much after the due dates even this  fact is also evident from the contents of the complaint very well. As a result thereof the question is answered in negation.   

10.              In view of the above, the complainant is not entitled for delayed possession interest as well as other charges. Hence, the complaint being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

11.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

4th  May, 2023                                                                     S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)