DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 229 of 2012. Date of Institution: 29.06.2012 Date of Decision: 07.09.2015
Anita Rani w/o Shri Brij Mehta through her SPA Shri Roshan Lal Goyal, resident of H.No.672, Sector 7 UE, Gurgaon.
……complainant.
Versus
- Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- The Estate Officer II, Sector 56, UE, Gurgaon.
.Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.S.Raghav, Adv for the complainant.
Sh.Ankush Yadav, Adv for the OPs
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that initially plot No.622-P, Sector 12-A, Urban Estate, Gurgaon was allotted to one Mahesh Kapoor vide allotment letter No.1057 dated 23.01.1986 who in turn through a friendly transfer alienated the same in favour of complainant and the complainant applied for transfer of the same by depositing fee vide Receipt No.12456 dated 19.08.1999. As the said plot was found under litigation the complainant was offered alternate plot No.1616 in Sector 45 UE, Gurgaon and re-allotment letter No.1537-1538 dated 10.05.2001 was issued in her favour and since then she has been trying to obtain possession of the said plot for which she had paid the entire sale consideration and nothing was due to be paid to the opposite party by her. The complainant was forced to pay enhance amount to the extent of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.19403 dated 23.12.1000 and Rs.30,000/- vide receipt No. 2129 dated 28.04.2000 for the alternate plot which infact was not required as it was a case of exchange of plots. The alternate plot was allotted in lieu of originally allotted plot and the opposite party could not recover any extra or enhanced price. Even otherwise the possession of the alternative plot has not been delivered by the opposite party. Despite her persistent request the possession was not delivered to her. She sought RTI information wherein it was mentioned that even said alternate plot 1616 Sector 45 is also under litigation and there is stay in favour of Shri Mohinder Singh Sharma vide letter dated 21.03.2012. The complainant has also entered into agreement to sell and the prospective vendee is pressing hard for getting the same transferred in his favour. As the plot of the complainant is under litigation, therefore, in view the Apex Court decision in case R.P.Chawla and as per the guidelines of HUDA the complainant is entitled to alternative plot of the same size in the same sector or in the adjoining sector on the same rates and terms and conditions as were applicable in the original allotment of plot no.622 P Sector 12-A , Gurgaon and no extra amount could be charged while allotting alternate plot No.1616 sector 45, Gurgaon as per settled proposition as it amounted to exchange of plot only i.e. against originally allotted qua the alternate plot and the complainant is entitled to refund extra amount charged while allotting alternative plot no.1616 sector 45, Gurgaon along with compound interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of payment of extra amount till refund besides payment of interest and compensation of Rs.3 Lacs. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OPs in their written reply have alleged that complainant has been offered an alternate plot. The complainant is bound by the terms and condition No.9 of allotment letter and the additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of its demand. Thus, the enhancement was totally legal and according to the provisions of law and the complainant was bound to pay the enhancement. No cause of action has been accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that initially plot No.622-P Sector 12-A, Gurgaon was allotted to one Mahesh Kumar which was later on transferred in favour of the complainant. As the above said plot was under litigation therefore, alternative plot No.1616 Sector 45, Gurgaon was re-allotted and re-allotment letter no.1537-1538 dated 10.05.2001 was issued in her favour. Since this plot was also under litigation, therefore, the complainant is entitled to allotment of another alternative plot in the same sector or in the adjoining sector with the same size on the same rates and terms and conditions. It is further argued that enhancement of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- recovered from the complainant is also liable to be refunded with interest.
5 However, the contention of the opposite party is that complainant is re-allottee of plot No.622-P, Sector 12-A and later on alternative plot No.1616, Sector 45,Gurgaon was allotted to her. However, the enhancement has rightly been charged from the complainant.
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that initially plot No.622-P Sector 12-A, Gurgaon was allotted to one Mahesh Kapoor who sold the same to the complainant and complainant got the same transferred in her favour. Since the said plot was under litigation, therefore, alternative plot No.1616, Sector 45, Gurgaon was allotted to her but so far the possession of alternate plot No.1616, Sector 45,Gurgaon has not been given to the complainant on one reason or the other.
7 However, the complainant was liable to pay enhancement as she was bound by the terms and condition No.9 of the allotment letter as she has stepped into the shoes of original allottee. Term and Condition N.9 of the allotment letter is reproduced as under:-
“The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of its demand.”
Thus, in view of above clause the complainant was liable to pay enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority as she was bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.
8 Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, parties, we hold that non delivery of possession of Plot No.1616, Sector 45, Gurgaon tantamounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, , we direct the opposite parties to give possession of plot No.1616, Sector 45, Gurgaon or alternate plot in the same sector or in the adjoining sector at the sector rate. The complainant is also entitled to interest on each deposits till delivery of possession at the rate on which the HUDA has charged on delayed payments as applicable in the present case. The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the harassment and mental agony due to non delivery of possession and Rs.3100/- as litigation expenses. OPs shall make the compliance of the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
07.09.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
