Haryana

Panchkula

cc/263/2014

JASWANT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA. - Opp.Party(s)

Manish kr Rampal.

04 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                    

Consumer Complaint No	:	263 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	16.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	04.03.2015

                                                                                                                 

Jaswant Singh S/o Late Sh.Gurbachan Singh, R/o H.No.54, Sector 32-A, I.B.Colony, Chandigarh.

                                                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority through Estate Officer, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                                             ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Manoj Kumar Rampal, Adv., for the complainant. 

Op already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1.         The pleadings made by the complainant herein have remained unrebutted in view of the fact that the OP, inspite of it being a Governmental instrumentality and further inspite of the effecting of service, opted to refrain from entering appearance till this order goes into print. We find this attitude on the part of OP/HUDA plainly indefensible. A Government instrumentality, repeatedly announced to be in the service of masses, is expected-nay bound-to defend a cause filed against it particularly because the adjudication therein could very well involve payment of certain amount as costs of litigation or interest etc. which has to be paid out of public funds. Irrespective of the outcome of the litigation, it behoves a such like instrumentality to enter appearance and make its presentation on record. It is these facts which impel us to notice the abstinence on the part of the OP/HUDA at the very outset.

2.         It is apparent from the complaint, the affidavit and the documentation filed in support thereof, that certain area of land belonging to late Mr. Gurbachan Singh (father of the complainant) was acquired vide award dated 17.06.1992. The acquisition “was confirmed vide Land Acquisition No.S.No.18-2005/2101 dated 10.02.2006”. Mr. Gurbachan Singh died on 17.05.2010. He had executed a registered will dated 07.05.2010 bequeathing all his property including the acquired land, infavour of the complainant. Prior to his death, Mr. Gurbachan Singh had filed an application for allotment of a 10 marla plot in the oustee quota in Sector-27, Panchkula, vide application No.0065 dated 12.01.2010. Alongwith the application, a demand draft No.982939 dated 08.01.2010 for Rs.1,82,000/- was enclosed. After the death of his father, the complainant forwarded a registered letter for allotment of a 10 marls plot under the oustees quota. He appeared before the Screening Committee on 10.05.2011 and he was told to wait for a period of 2/3 months for the allotment of a 10 marla plot. When that promised allotment did not come about inspite of repeated visits to the office of OP, the complainant was impelled to file a writ petition (No.15897 of 2011) which was decided, alongwith certain other connected cases, by the Hon’ble High Court. LPA No.2096, pertaining to the main case, was disposed of vide an order, the relevant part whereof is extracted hereunder:-

“That the Outsees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued may be inviting applications from general public and the oustees through one advertisement. It an Oustees is no successful, he/she can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired for residential/commercial purpose or in the adjoining sector, if the land acquired was for institutional and industrial purpose etc. The plots to the outstees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an oustee.”

3.         In pursuance of the extracted order of the Hon’ble High Court, the concerned official in the office of HUDA told the complainant to apply for the refund of the demand draft amount which he did by moving an application for allotment of a 10 marla plot or for refund of the amount of Rs.1,82,000/-. The OP returned that draft to him on As Is Where is Basis, without payment of any interest. OP simultaneously rejected the plea for the allotment of a plot by indicating that the application had been filed by the father of the complainant, after the last date was over and that the complainant too had applied for allotment after long delay.

4.         The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP requiring the latter to “make the payment of interest on the amount of Rs.1,82,000/- since 08.01.2010, when the Demand Draft was deposited with HUDA till payment of Demand Draft”.OP did not offer any response to it, thereby impelling the complainant to file this complaint.

5.         The claim raised by the complainant in this complaint is, thus, restricted to the refund of Rs.1,82,000/- alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum w.e.f. 08.01.2010 till payment thereof comes about, alongwith a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and mental agony etc. caused to him.

6.         As already indicated in the opening para of this judgment, the OP refrained from entering appearance and contesting this case inspite of the fact that service had been effected upon it.

7.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the documentation available on the record.

8.         It is evident from Annexure-C3, a letter addressed by the OP to the late father of the complainant (vide memo dated 03.05.2011), the claim for allotment of a plot was rejected by the Screening Committee which found that the application had been received after the closing date i.e. 21.12.2009. The further purported premise of rejection was recorded in the course of para 2 of that letter which is extracted hereunder for facility of reference: -

“Since the claims are to be considered only as per advertisement dated 22.11.2009 and you have not submitted any document to prove that you had ever applied earlier or that your case was considered and rejected by the Screening committee prior to 29.11.2006 or that you case was pending in any court of law, hence the fresh claim of the applicant cannot be considered. In the advertisement dated 22.11.2009 it was specifically mentioned in Condition no.4 (a) that no fresh claim is to be considered and moreover the application has not been received within the time prescribed in the advertisement, hence this claim is liable to be rejected. However in the interest of justice one last opportunity of personal hearing is given to you for clarifying your position in this regard”.

9.         It is clear from the record that the OP retained the demand draft No.982939 dated 08.01.2010 amounting to Rs.1,82,000/- without depositing it into the HUDA account and without returning it to the father of the complainant alongwith the intimation that it had been delivered in the office after the last date.

10.       If the application filed by the father of the complainant had not been delivered in time, it was incumbent upon the OP to return it to the former with an endorsement that the plea could not be entertained as it had not been delivered in time. A Governmental instrumentality cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, retain a like draft for a number of years and refrain from returning it to the applicant with whatever objection the former opts to raise qua its reception for consideration. If the concerned official of the office of OP did not deposit the draft into the HUDA account, no exoneration from liability in the relevant behalf can be raised.

11.       Even otherwise, the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in LPA categorically indicated that “The plots to the oustees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an oustee”.

12.       In the light of that order, the OP could not have validly declined consideration of application filed by the father of the complainant, on the objection that it had not been filed in time. Be that as it may, that controversy need not detain us as the relief claimed herein is restricted to the refund of the amount with interest etc.

13.       The averments in the course of this complaint, which are affidavit-supported and unrebutted and are further evident from Annexure-C3 and Annexure-C4, raise a very pertinent issue with regard to the accountability of the officials in the employment of a Governmental instrumentality. HUDA has obviously large manpower at its disposal for its functioning. The job over there is handled through computers, though under manual supervision. The attitude of the concerned official, in having retained the relevant draft for such a long period, reflects a lackadaisical approach which cannot be acceptable in the present age wherein there are legislations authorizing the Right to Service Act and the like. For the duration the draft was not returned, the complainant was denied the availability of the relevant amount. That the HUDA did not benefit either is due to the indiscretion of a functionary of the organization who, by virtue of being in employment, is duty-bound to perform the charged functions and to act in a prudent manner to protect the interest of the organization as well. The concerned official(s) surely did not do the organization proud by the proven refrain on their part.

14.       While allowing the complaint, we would direct that: -

                          a)        OP shall return the demand draft No.982939 dated 08.01.2010 amounting to Rs.1,82,000/- to the complainant, alongwith whatever charges are payable by the latter for the delay in the encashment thereof. If the issuing bank denies encashment, for one reason or the other, it shall be incumbent upon the OP to pay that amount in cash to the complainant.

                          b)        OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the above amount, w.e.f. the date of receipt thereof in its office and till either the draft is encashed or the amount is paid by the OP to the complainant in cash.

                          c)        OP shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service as also for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

                          d)        OP shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.                  

15.       The OP shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about. 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   

04.03.2015                ANITA KAPOOR                                         DHARAM PAL

                                     MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                                       

                                                                                    ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                                                MEMBER