BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 156 of 2019
Date of Institution : 27.03.2019
Date of Decision : 07.01.2020.
Anudeep wife of Sandeep Goyal, resident of Gali Peer Wali, Near Geeta Bhawan Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 20, Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………. …… MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Smt. Sharda Saharan, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had applied for a residential plot under oustees category to Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sirsa as per Haryana Government policy in response to public notice issued in newspaper by depositing Rs.50,000/- vide receipt number 068580 dated 15.10.2013 due to acquisition of her one kanal land in village Vaidwala, Sirsa by Haryana Government. That even after a long lapse of more than 51 months, neither any residential plot was offered/ allotted to the complainant nor her money was refunded. She was also not paid any interest by the op whereas the op had been enjoying the benefit from the money of complainant for this long period. It is further averred that after a long wait of 51 months and 20 days, suddenly complainant received a cheque of Rs.57,926/- alongwith covering letter dated 25.1.2018 from the Estate Officer HUDA, Sirsa on account of earnest money of Rs.50,000/- deposited by complainant. That as per the refund received by complainant, only a meager amount of Rs.7926/- has been paid to her as compensation for extra ordinary long wait and harassment of more than 51 months. It is further averred that if it is treated as interest, it comes out to be just 3.44% of quarterly compound interest per annum whereas the op itself charges interest @15% per annum on any delayed payment from its allotees. It is further averred that it is very much clear that op has caused an undue harassment by keeping the complainant for waiting for more than 51 months for allotment of any residential plot to her and finally disappointed her by denying to allot any residential plot to her by refunding her earnest money alongwith negligible compensation. Hence, this complaint for seeking direction to the opposite party to award minimum compensation of Rs.56,697/- to the complainant in the form of interest @18% per annum compounded quarterly from the date on which Rs.50,000/- was deposited by complainant as earnest money till the refund amount was received by her after deducting amount of Rs.7926/- and to pay additional interest @18% on the above mentioned interest amount till the actual date of payment made to the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no consumer dispute, no cause of action, estoppal, concealment of true and material facts, limitation and that complainant has not availed the departmental remedy by way of filing of appeal or representation regarding the dispute raised by complainant. On merits, it is submitted that as per record, the complainant was not found entitled to this allotment of the plot for which the complainant had applied for. It is further submitted that as per the rules and the instructions, vide memo No. UB-A-5-2016/46608-09 dated 11.8.2016 issued by the Chief Administrate, HUDA, Panchkula to all the Administrators and Estate Officers of HUDA, the earnest money is to be refunded alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 5.5% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The position regarding the rate of interest is made clear in para no.15 of the above said Memo. Accordingly, the above said cheque has been issued to the complainant legally and as per rules and complainant is not entitled to any other amount than the above mentioned amount. All other contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A. She has also furnished copy of publication Ex.C1, copy of receipt Ex.C2, copy of acquisition letter Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 25.1.2018 Ex.C4. On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Estate Officer as Ex.RW1/A and copy of memo Ex.R1.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts reported as 2012 (1) LAR 475 titled as HUDA Versus Sandeep and others, CWP No.10941 of 2010 decided on 26.4.2012 titled as Bhagwan Singh & others vs. State of Haryana and others.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as HUDA & Anr. vs. Sandeep & Anr. decided on 6.3.2014.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through record.
9. Admittedly, complainant had applied for allotment of a plot against category of an oustee person as her land was acquired by opposite party, but however, allotment could not be made. It is further undisputed fact that complainant received cheque of Rs.57,926/- alongwith covering letter dated 25.1.2018 from op on account of earnest money of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.7926/- as interest.
10. The bone of contention between the parties is qua rate of interest. As per contention of learned counsel for op, the liability of the op to pay interest is only at the rate of 5.5% per annum as per circular of the Chief Administrate Ex.R1. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has stated at bar that amount of interest paid by op only comes to at the rate of 3.44% per annum whereas op charges rate of interest on the defaulting amount from their defaulters at the rate of 18% per annum and similarly op is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op has not denied that HUDA is not charging interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the defaulting amount from the allottees. So, it will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is allowed and op is directed to pay interest @18% per annum which is being charged by op from their allottees on their defaulting amount.
12. In view of above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to pay interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of deposit till actual payment to the complainant after deducting amount of interest which has already been paid. We further direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Sections 25/27 of the Act against the op. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated: 07.01.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
