Haryana

Panchkula

cc/211/2014

SANJEEV GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                            

                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	211 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	30.10.2014
Date of Decision	:	10.04.2015

                                                                                          

Sh.Sanjeev Goyal S/o Sh.Tarlochan Lal, R/o H.No.1070, Sector-15, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA Office Complex, C-3, 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:     Complainant in person. 

                             Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Adv., for the Op.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a plot No.586, Sector-27, Panchkula from Sh.Sudhir Verma and Madhuri Verma on 18.03.2014 and the same was re-allotted to the complainant by HUDA (Annexure C-1). The complainant started construction at plot No.586, Sector-27, Panchkula and the plot was low lying almost 5 feet below road. The complainant informed the OP that there is an estimate of expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- in filling to bring the plot to road level (Annexure C-2). The complainant also informed the Op that he was a bonafide buyer of plot from OP, was entitled to a leveled plot and requested to provide filling sand as clarified at the earliest so that he could start construction of his house. But the Op did not reply for the same and the complainant had to start construction by filling sand at his own level. The complainant wrote a letter to Op and requested the Op to reimburse the claim of Rs.1,90,500/- (Annexure C-3) for filling of sand in his plot to make the plot leveled with adjoining road as the plot was almost 5 feet below ground level.  The Op replied that as per allotment letter, the HUDA is responsible only for development like roads, water supply, sewer, storm water and street light and the authority was not responsible for leveling the uneven sites (Annexure C-4). But as per allotment letter (Annexure C-5), the authority was also not responsible for roads, water supply, sewer, storm water and street light and allotment letter is general in nature giving details about payment etc. The complainant replied the Op that case for plots allotted in Sec.-27, Panchkula in general and plot No.586 in particular was not of leveling the uneven site as the whole of plot was level. The complainant also alleged that infact, the claim for Rs.1,90,500/- was not for leveling of uneven site but for refilling of site as the plot allotted by the Authority was 5 feet below the road and he had to incur expenditure for bringing it to the road level. The complainant also brought the notice of HUDA the discomfort undergone by him in filling the sand of the huge quantity due to ban in mining etc. and such kind of work which effected the whole area like Sec.-27, Panchkula should have been undertaken by the Authority before or after giving the allotment and for that purpose, the Authority charged EDC and IDC. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the plot No.586 P, Sector-27, Panchkula was originally allotted to Smt.Archana Pasi vide allotment letter No.996 dated 03.11.2006. As per condition No.17 of the allotment letter, the authority would not be responsible for leveling of uneven sites. It is submitted that the possession of the plot was offered vide memo No.997 dated 03.11.2006 thereafter, the plot in question was transferred in favour of Sh.Sudhir Verma and Madhur Verma vide re-allotment letter No.5623 dated 02.06.2008. It is submitted that as per condition No.11 of the re-allotment letter, the authority should not be responsible for leveling uneven sites. The conveyance deed was also executed on 19.02.2014 which was registered on 25.02.2014. It is submitted that Sh.Sudhir Verma and Madhuri Verma took the possession of the plot in question vide possession certificate dated 22.01.2009 without any objection. Sh.Sudhir Verma and Madhuri Verma applied for permission to transfer in favoru of Bimla Goyal and Sanjeev Goyal which was allowed on 11.03.2014 on the basis of sale deed which was executed between the parties on 20.03.2014. It is submitted that on submission of requisite documents, the re-allotment letter in favour of Sanjeev Goyal & Bimla Goyal was issued vide memo No.3428 dated 01.04.2014 and thereafter, they were bound by terms and conditions of allotment letter and provisions of HUDA Act, rules, regulations, instructions & guidelines issued thereunder and amended from time to time. It is submitted that the building plan was approved vide letter dated 09.05.2014. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the plot in secondary market from Sh.Sudhir Verma and Madhuri Verma with open eyes after spot inspection. It is submitted that the re-allottees took the possession of the plot on 22.01.2009 but the complaint was filed in October, 2014, therefore, the complaint is time barred. It is further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable because the HUDA is responsible only for development of site in question like roads, water supply, sewer and electricity and the same was informed to the complainant vide office letter No.5405 dated 07.10.2014. It is submitted that as per allotment letter, the authority is not responsible for leveling the uneven sites. It is submitted that the possession was offered on 03.11.2006 after completion of development works. It is submitted that earth filling is not a part of development or EDC or IDC as alleged by the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Op has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence.
4. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for Ops reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.
5. We have gone through the entire record, reply and evidence adduced by the parties.
6. Admittedly, the plot No.586-P, Sector-27, Panchkula was originally allotted in favour of Smt.Archana Passi vide allotment letter dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure R-1 & R-2) and possession was also offered on 03.11.2006. Thereafter, the plot in question was allotted Smt.Madhuri Verma and Sh.Sudhir Verma vide allotment letter dated 02.06.2008 (Annexure C-5). The complainant purchased the plot in question from the previous allottee and the Ops re-allotted the same vide allotment letter dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure C-1).
7. The main grouse of the complainant is that he was constructing the house at the plot No.586-P, Sector-27, Panchkula but the plot was lying almost 5 ft. below from road and the complainant informed the HUDA that there is an estimate expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- in filling to bring the plot to road level (Annexure C-2). The complainant has stated that he is a bonafide buyer of plot from HUDA and is entitled to a leveled plot. The complainant further submitted an estimate for expenditure to be incurred to fill sand to make the plot level is Rs.1,90,500/- (Annexure C-3).
8. On the other hand, the stand taken by the Ops is that the complainant is reallottee and as per terms and conditions of the allotment order/reallotment letters, the HUDA is not responsible for leveling the uneven sites and the Ops informed the complainant vide their letter dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure R-4).
9. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the contention of the complainant are without any merit. As per condition No.11 of allotment/reallotment letters as mentioned above, the ops are not responsible for leveling the uneven sites which reads as under:-

“The Authority will not be responsible for leveling the uneven sites.”

10. Reliance has been placed  on the judgments of our own Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Haryana State Marketing Agricultural Board and Anr versus Baru Singh and others in appeal No.1267 of 2007 decided on 18.08.2010 and HUDA versus Ashwani Gupta appeal No.177 of 2005 decided on 13.06.2011 while deciding the appeal titled as HUDA vs. Ashwani Gupta, the Hon’ble State Commission has held as under:-

“Admittedly, the complainant is not the original allottee of the plot but he had purchased the plot from Lt. Gen. D.B.Singh who was also the re-allottee of the plot as he had purchased the plot from the original allottee Manmohan Singh. Thus, at the time of purchasing the plot, the complainant was fully aware about the location and development in respect of the plot. If he was not satisfied with the development works in the area, then he could have ignored the purchase of the plot. Thus, the complainant being re-allottee of the plot, the plea raised by him cannot be termed as a ‘consumer dispute’. Thus, the complainant cannot claim any interest on the deposited amount and compensation.

          Such a controversy has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as Haryana Urban Development Authority versus Raje Ram, 1 (2009) CPJ 56 wherein it has been observed that:-

“Housing-Re-allotment-Interest-Award of –Where possession given at old rate, party has got benefit of escalation in price of land, interest should not be awarded on amounts paid by allottees due to delay in allotment –Respondents re-allotees aware about delay –Cannot be compared with original allottees, who waited for a decade or more for delivery of possession- Possession delivered –Consumer complaint filed within short period from date of re-allotment, without paying full price –Award of interest neither warranted, nor justified –Orders of District Forum, State and National Commissions awarding interest set aside.”

In plara 7 of the judgment in above ‘Raje Ram’ case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“7.    Respondents in the three appeals are not the original allottees. They are re-allottees to whom re-allotment was made by the appellant in the years 1994, 1997 and 1996 respectively. They were aware, when the plots were re-allotteed to them, that there was delay (either in forming the layout itself or delay in delivering the allotted plot_on account of encroachment, etc.) In spite of it, they took re-allotment. Their cases cannot be campared to the cases of original allottees who were made to wait for a decade or more for delivery and thus put to mental agony and harassment. They were aware that time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of the contract and the original allottees had accepted the delay…………”

The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to the ‘Raje Ram’ case (Supra). The complainant being re-allottee of the plot, cannot claim any compensation from the opposite parties for non-development of the plot and for that reason the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.”

11. In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that complaint lacks merit, therefore, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced                     (Anita Kapoor)                       (Dharam Pal)

10.04.2015                     Member                                  President

 

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

                                          

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal                                                                                                President