Haryana

Panchkula

CC/37/2015

RAMESH LAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA. - Opp.Party(s)

NIKHIL SHARMA.

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	37 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	13.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	09.06.2015

 

Sh.Ramesh Lal s/o Sh.Tara Chand, SCO No.32, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-5, Panchkula.

2.       The Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak.                                                                             

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

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

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

For the Parties:     Mr.Nikhil Sharma, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.Surinder Chaudhary, Adv., for the Ops (Defence struck off).

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant-Ramesh Lal with the averments that he applied for allotment of residential plot with the Op No.2 and deposited an amount of Rs.2,14,800/- as earnest money. The complainant was allotted a plot No.190GP in Sector-5, Rohtak measuring 231 sq. mtr. @ Rs.9740/- sq. mtr. vide allotment letter dated 16.07.2013 for an amount of Rs.23,62,437/- (Annexure C-1). According to clause 5 of the allotment letter, the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.3,75,809/- i.e. 15% within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. The complainant received the letter on 20.07.2013. The complainant sent a demand draft of Rs.3,75,809/- on 13.08.2013 (Annexure C-4) to Op No.2 which was received by the Op No.2 on 16.08.2013 within 30 days. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,589/- i.e. 5% surcharge and 15% interest on account of delayed payment. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- under protest vide demand draft No.208560 dated 20.08.2013 (Annexure C-7) and Rs.589/- transferred via online payment dated 11.09.2013. The complainant also stated to the Op No.2 that there was no delay on the part of the complainant for payment of the amount (Annexure C-6). The complainant sought the information under RTI from the Op No.2 by filing different applications dated 21.01.2014, 31.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 regarding the additional amount demanded by the Op No.2 on account of delayed payment. The OP No.2 informed the complainant, vide reference No.846 dated 07.02.2014, that the amount of delayed payment had been charged as the payment of remaining 15% was received on 27.08.2013 which was delayed by 9 days, therefore, surcharge @ 5% and interest @ 15% has been charged. The complainant visited many times to Op No.2 to resolve his grievance but to no avail. On 19.10.2014, the complainant moved an application to Op No.1 and requested for refund of the amount charged in excess (Annexure C-8). The Op No.1 replied vide letter dated 13.11.2014 that since he had deposited the fee on 27.08.2014, therefore, there was a delay as the fee should have been deposited by 14.08.2013 and the surcharge could not be waived off. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops, through their counsel Sh.Surinder Chaudhary, appeared before this Forum on 26.03.2015 and sought time for filing of the written statement. On 09.04.2015, the counsel for the Ops again sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned for 27.04.2015 for filing written statement. Again, on 27.04.2015, the counsel for the Ops did not file written statement after availing opportunities and the defence of the Ops was ordered to be struck off, vide order dated 27.04.2015.
3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is evident that the complainant was allotted a plot No.190GP in Sector-5, Rohtak measuring 231 sq. mtr. @ Rs.9740/- sq. mtr. vide allotment letter dated 16.07.2013 for an amount of Rs.23,62,437/- (Annexure C-1). According to clause 5 of the allotment letter, the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.3,75,809/- i.e. 15% within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter for which the complainant sent a demand draft of Rs.3,75,809/- on 13.08.2013 (Annexure C-4) to Op No.2 which was received by the Op No.2 on 16.08.2013 within 30 days. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,589/- i.e. 5% surcharge and 15% interest on account of delayed payment. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- under protest vide demand draft No.208560 dated 20.08.2013 (Annexure C-7) and Rs.589/- transferred via online payment dated 11.09.2013.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that the amount of Rs.25,589/- was wrongly charged from him as the allotment letter dated 16.07.2013 was dispatched by the Op No.2 on 17.07.2013 and received by the complainant on 20.07.2013 (Annexure C-2 & C-3). The complainant sent the demand draft of Rs.3,75,809/- dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure C-4) and the same reached at HUDA office-Op No.2 on 16.08.2013 which is proved from Annexure C-5. The complainant requested the Op No.2, vide letter Annexure C-6, that there was no delay on the part of the complainant in the payment of the amount and pleaded for the waiver of the penalty imposed upon him or to adjust the amount in further installments. On 09.10.2014, the complainant also requested the Op No.1, through application (Annexure C-8), for refund of the amount charged in excess. The Op No.1 replied, vide letter dated 13.11.2014, that the complainant had deposited the fee on 27.08.2014, therefore, there was a delay as the amount should have been deposited by 14.08.2013 and the surcharge could not be waived. The complainant has also filed duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A) in support of the averments made in the course of the complaint.
7. It being the proven position that the draft forwarded by the complainant had been delivered in the office of Ops on 16.08.2013 (i.e. within 30 days of issue of the allotment letter i.e. 16.07.2013), the payment of installment by the complainant is not open to the charge of delay. That being so, the complainant could not have been billed for the surcharge amount. The fact that the complainant did pay up does not make any difference because there can be no estoppel against the law and, in any case, that payment had been made by the complainant under protest.
8. Moreover, the Ops appeared but did not file any written statement to contest the claim of the complainant and the defence of Ops was struck off, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is held to have been proved.
9. The fact that the stance adopted by the Ops stands flawed notwithstanding, we may indicate that the adoption of technical/hyper technical approach by HUDA, an instrumentability of a welfare state does not deserve affirmation. In this particular complaint, it is the impersonal and indefensible attitude on the part of the officials of the Ops which impelled the complainant to file this litigation.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the deposited amount of Rs.25,589/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till realization thereof.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment caused to the complainant.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

09.06.2015             ANITA KAPOOR                 DHARAM PAL

                               MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT