Haryana

StateCommission

CC/86/2017

COL.SATISH KUMAR JOSHI(RETD.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

KANWAR YUVRAJ SINGH

06 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:14.02.2017

                Date of final hearing:23.07.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:06.09.2024

 

Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Col. Satish Kumar Joshi (Retd.), son of Maj. Amrit Bhushan Joshi (Retd.), aged about 65 years, resident of H.No. 1635, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana.                                                                                 

.….Complainant.

Through counsel Mr. K.Y. Singh, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief   Administrator, C-3, H.U.D.A Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.      Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hissar, Haryana.

….Opposite parties

Through counsel Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   Shri Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

Shri S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. K.Y,. Singh, Advocate along with Col. Satish Kumar Joshi (Retd.) in person.

Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

PER: S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that present complainant is a retired Army Personnel. After retirement he wanted to settle down in Haryana State and got an opportunity to apply for residential plot at Hisar in an upcoming Army Sector. Since the complainant or his spouse was not having/owning any residential plot anywhere in Haryana, in the year 2008, the complainant applied for 1 Kanal residential plot in Sector-5, Hisar being developed for Defence & Paramilitary Forces Personnel. The complainant was successful in the draw of lot and was allotted Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar having dimension of 15 mtrs X 30 mtrs. vide allotment letter/Memo No.11552 dated 30.06.2009 by the opposite parties ('OPs’). Thereafter, complainant paid a total amount of Rs.45,73,209/- towards the cost of the said plot  on different dates to OPs as per their demands till February, 2015. It was alleged that about more than 30 years back and before the allotment of the above mentioned plot at Hisar, the complainant was allotted a 14 Marla Plot bearing No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula on 26.08.1980. The application for said plot was made in year 1979 by the complainant when he was in service and was posted as Aide-De-Camp (A.D.C) to Governor Himachal Pradesh. The applications for allotment of said plot at Panchkula were invited by the Army and forwarded through Army channels to PH and HP Area Mukhyalaya, HQ PH and HP Area, Ambala Cantt. It was further alleged that there was no direct communication in applying or allotment of the said plot at Panchkula with H.U.D.A. The entire process of allotment was completed through the Army for serving Army personnel at the time when Panchkula city was coming up. Moreover, way back in year 1979 there was no policy or rule of H.U.D.A that the Defence personnel can avail the facility for allotment of plot under reserve category for Defence only once. In fact a change was introduced in the policy for allotment of residential plots in the Urban Estates of Haryana by H.U.D.A vide Memo No.A-11-87/805-15 dated 09.01.1987, whereby it was introduced that a person or its dependents cannot acquire more than one plot in an Urban Estate in Haryana. This condition was not applicable to certain categories including Defence Personnel, etc. It makes amply clear that there was no bar for applying more than once for allotment of plot under Defence Personnel category before year 1987 and even thereafter till the time the present policy came into existence, which completely bars applying more than once for allotment of plot under Defence Personnel category.

2.                It was further alleged that in the meantime, the complainant came to know about some dispute regarding the allotment of plots under Defence Personnel category through newspaper. He contacted the office of OP No.2 and informed that previously in year 1980 a plot has been allotted to him in Panchkula under Defence category and the same has been sold by him in year 1988-89 because of the reason that he was posted in operational/far-flung arrears and was not in a position to construct the same due to paucity of time and financial constraints. The complainant tried to clarify his position regarding the plot in question, but did not have any satisfactory reply. There was multiple and contradictory information available and the information received was totally ambiguous and confusing as H.U.D.A policies kept changing frequently over the last 30 years. Taking no chances the complainant decided to surrender the allotted Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar vide his application dated 14.08.2015 which was accepted by the office of Estate Officer H.U.D.A, Hissar vide Application No. ZO003/E0006/UE012/2015/SURRE/000044 dated 14.08.2015. Thereafter, complainant was shocked to receive a show-cause notice (after having surrendered the plot in question and duly accepted by H.U.D.A) regarding availing the benefit of allotment for more than one residential plot under reserve category (DEPER) vide Memo No.19891 dated 15.09.2015 from OP No.2. As per the said show-cause notice it was alleged that the complainant has submitted false affidavit while applying for the plot at Hisar. Further, OP No.2 has also failed to notice that when the first allotment of plot was made at Panchkula in the year 1980 there was no policy regarding multiple allotments and even in the H.U.D.A policy of year 1987 the Defence Personnel were not included for availing the benefit of multiple allotment of plots. The allotment of plot in question does not fall under the category of multiple allotments as the complainant has not availed the facility of allotment of plot under reserve category (DEPER) after coming into existence of the present policy regarding the multiple allotments of plots. Thereafter, complainant sent a detailed reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice vide its letter dated 28.09.2015.

3.                It was further alleged that complainant further received an office order issued by OP No.2 vide Endst. No.122383 dated 30.11.2016, whereby OP No. 2 had cancelled the allotment of residential Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar (after having surrendered the plot in question and duly accepted by H.U.D.A) in complete disregard to the factual as well as the legal position/policy of H.U.D.A. The said office order also states regarding forfeiting the amount of Rs.45,73,209/- paid towards the price of plot in question by the complainant. Even the bona-fide action of surrendering the plot in question by complainant has been ignored in an arbitrary and illegal manner and further ordered to forfeit the money/amount paid towards the price of plot in question by the complainant. It was further alleged that firstly, the present policy regarding the multiple allotments of plots under Defence category was not applicable when the first plot at Panchkula was allotted. Secondly, the bona-fide action of surrendering the plot at Hisar by the complainant himself has been depreciated, however, the OPs have ignored all the above stated facts. This is a clear example of unfair trade practices of the OPs, who violate of the principles of natural justice and the services rendered are deficient, mala-fide, unfair, unjust and illegal.

 4.               It was further alleged that since the complainant had already deposited full payment towards the plot in question i.e. Rs. 45,73,209/- with the OPs in furtherance of the allotment of plot, but they failed to allot the same to the complainant and thus the cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the OPs, firstly on 15.09.2015 when the OP No.2 had issued show-cause notice to the complainant. Further cause of action accrued on 30.11.2016 when OP No.2 had cancelled the allotment of residential Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar (after having surrendered the plot in question and duly accepted by H.U.D.A) in complete disregard to the factual as well as the legal position/policy of H.U.D.A and further ordered to forfeit the money/amount paid towards the price of plot in question by the complainant. This act and conduct of the OPs amounts to grave deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. The OPs have caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant because he had deposited such a huge amount after collecting his life's savings with hope to move into his own house. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs and he prayed for issuance of direction to the OPs to refund the Rs.45,73,209/- deposited by the complainant with the OPs towards the payment of the allotment of plot along with compound interest @18% p.a., from the date of last deposit of the amounts i.e. 26.02.2015 until actual realization. The OPs be further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

5.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the OPs, upon which OPs appeared and filed their written statement, submitting therein that in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in CRM No. M-26292 of 2013 tilted as “Dharam Singh Yadav Vs. State of Haryana”, to ascertain those allottees who have illegally obtained allotment of more than one plot under a reserve category, the record of various Urban Estates was scrutinized and the scrutiny revealed that the complainant has obtained more than one plot under various reserve categories by submitting false, misleading and incomplete affidavit. It was further submitted that a notice was issued vide Memo No.19891 dated 15.09.2015 to the complainant to show cause as to why the allotment of Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar (DEPER) obtained by him under the reserve category may not be cancelled and FIR be lodged against him for having obtained the plot in question fraudulently by submitting false, misleading and incomplete affidavit and the complainant was also asked to appear in the office of the OP No.2 on 28.09.2015 along with reply/documents and ID Proof, however, he complied the same and submitted his written reply. It was further submitted that as per Condition No.23 of the allotment letter the complainant was required to submit an affidavit within 30 days to the effect that he have not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserve category in his life time except the plot in question and if the affidavit and certificate submitted by him are found to be false at any stage, then the above allotment shall stand cancelled and deposited amount shall be forfeited by the authority and he shall have no right to claim anything for the same. Moreover, the complainant submitted false and misleading affidavit dated 13.08.2009 according to which he has not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserved category in his life time except the Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar as Plot No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula (DEPER) was also originally allotted to him under the reserved category i.e., DEPER. Further, the reply submitted by the complainant was not found to be satisfactory and the Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar which has been surrendered by the complainant on 14.08.2015 was also not considered due to allotment of double/multiple allotment plot and the allotment of Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar was cancelled. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground as once the complainant himself at fault, he cannot seek remedy for his own wrong fault.

6.                OPs further submitted that the complainant himself sent a apology letter dated 28.09.2015 to the OPs for the mistake committed by him and has also requested to take a lenient view of his unintentional mistake by surrendering the 2^nd  plot allotted to him under the DEPER category. The request submitted by the complainant was not found to be satisfactory and the Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar which has been surrendered by the complainant on 14.08.2015 was also not considered due to allotment of double/multiple allotment plot and the allotment of Plot No.25, sector-5, Hisar was cancelled. Moreover, it is the complainant himself, who did not comply with the terms and conditions of the HUDA Policy and rules and regulations of the OP's. Apart from this, the plea of the complainant that he does not fall under the category of multiple allotments as he has not availed the facility of allotment of plot under reserve category (DEPER) after coming into existence of the present policy regarding the multiple allotments of plot are wrong and hence denied. Further, the condition No.26 of the allotment letter of Plot No.25, in Defence sector-5 (Part) UE, Hisar is reproduced as under :-

"You shall have to furnish an affidavit duly attested by first class magistrate within 30 days to the effect that you have no plot or land or house in your name or in the name of your spouse or in the name of any of your dependent family member in any Urban Estate of Haryana and you have not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserve category in your life time except this plot. If the affidavit and certificate submitted by you are found to be false at any stage, then the above allotment shall stand cancelled and deposited amount shall be forfeited by the authority and you shall have no right to claim anything for the same."

 

The complainant submitted false, misleading and incomplete affidavit dated 13.08.2009 that he has not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserved category in his life time except the Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar as Plot No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula (DEPER) was also originally allotted to him under the reserved category i.e. DEPER.  Moreover, OP No. 2 has rightly issued an office order vide Endst.No.122383 dated 30.11.2016, whereby the allotment of Plot No. 25, Sector-5, Hisar was cancelled after considering the reply of the complainant and also giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the complainant.

7.                OPs further submitted that the complainant had entered into a legal contract and is bound to comply with each and every condition of the allotment letter and the HUDA policy as amended up to date, as per which, if the affidavit and certificate submitted by him are found to be false at any stage, then the above allotment shall stand cancelled and deposited amount shall be forfeited by the authority and he shall have no right to claim anything for the same. Finally, it was submitted that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant is legally bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and HUDA polices as amended from time to time. The complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong and is not entitled to any refund and compensation as prayed by him and lastly the OPs prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

8.               When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant-Col. Satish Kumar (Retd.) has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1 vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint along with other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Dalbir Singh, Clerk, Office of Estate Officer, HUDA Hisar as Ex.OP-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

10.              The arguments have been advanced by Mr. K.Y. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant along with Col. Satish Kumar (Retd.), who appeared in person and Mr. Sikander Bakshi, learned counsel for OPs. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint have been properly perused and examined.

11.              As per the basic averments raised in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already deposited with the OPs, alongwith interest or not? 

12.              While unfolding his arguments, it has been argued by Mr. K.Y. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant that in the year 2008, the complainant applied for one (01) Kanal residential plot in Sector-5, Hisar being developed for Defence & Paramilitary Forces Personnel and through draw he was allotted Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar having dimension of 15 mtrs X 30 mtrs vide allotment letter/Memo No.11552 dated 30.06.2009 and he paid a total amount of Rs.45,73,209/- towards the cost of the said plot  on different dates to OPs till February, 2015. He further argued that before allotment of the above mentioned plot at Hisar, complainant was also allotted a 14 Marla Plot bearing No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula on 26.08.1980. The application for the said plot was made in year 1979 by the complainant when he was in service and was posted as Aide-De-Camp (A.D.C) to Governor Himachal Pradesh. Said application for allotment of said plot at Panchkula was invited by the Army and forwarded through Army channels to PH and HP Area Mukhyalaya, HQ PH and HP Area, Ambala Cantt. and there was no direct communication in applying or allotment of the said plot at Panchkula with H.U.D.A. The entire process of allotment was completed through the Army Channel for serving Army personnel at the time when Panchkula city was coming up. Further, he argued that way back in year 1979 there was no policy or rule of H.U.D.A that the Defence personnel can avail the facility for allotment of plot under reserve category for Defence only once. In fact a change was introduced in the policy for allotment of residential plots in the Urban Estates of Haryana by H.U.D.A vide Memo No.A-11-87/805-15 dated 09.01.1987, whereby it was introduced that a person or its dependents cannot acquire more than one plot in an Urban Estate in Haryana. Moreover, this condition was not applicable to certain categories including Defence Personnel, etc. It makes amply clear that there was no bar for applying more than once for allotment of plot under Defence Personnel category before year 1987 and even thereafter till the time the present policy came into existence, which completely bars applying more than once for allotment of plot under Defence Personnel category.

13.              Learned counsel for complainant has further argued that complainant contacted the office of OP No.2 and informed that previously in year 1980 a plot has been allotted to him in Panchkula under Defence category and the same has been sold by him in year 1988-89 because of the reason that he was posted in operational/far-flung arrears and was not in a position to construct the same due to paucity of time and financial constraints and he (complainant) tried to clarify his position regarding the plot in question, but did not have any satisfactory reply. So, he(complainant) decided to surrender the allotted Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar vide his application dated 14.08.2015 which was accepted by the office of Estate Officer H.U.D.A, Hissar vide Application No. ZO003/E0006/UE012/2015/SURRE/000044 dated 14.08.2015. He further argued that after that, complainant received a show-cause notice regarding availing the benefit of allotment for more than one residential plot under reserve category (DEPER) vide Memo No.19891 dated 15.09.2015 from OP No.2. Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that as per said show-cause notice it was alleged that the complainant has submitted false affidavit while applying for the plot at Hisar. However, complainant replied the same vide its letter dated 28.09.2015. Thereafter, he received an office order issued by OP No.2 vide Endst. No. 122383 dated 30.11.2016, whereby the OP No. 2 had cancelled the allotment of residential Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar in complete disregard to the factual as well as the legal position/policy of H.U.D.A and OPs also forfeited the amount of Rs.45,73,209/- paid towards the price of plot in question by the complainant. Even the bona-fide action of surrendering the plot in question by complainant has been ignored in an arbitrary and illegal manner and further ordered to forfeit the money/amount paid towards the price of plot in question by the complainant. Learned counsel for complainant further vehemently argued that firstly, the present policy regarding the multiple allotments of plots under Defence category was not applicable when the first plot at Panchkula was allotted and secondly, the bona-fide action of surrendering the plot at Hisar by the complainant himself has been depreciated, however, the OPs have ignored all the above stated facts. Thus, the OPs violated the principles of natural justice and the services rendered are deficient, mala-fide, unfair, unjust and illegal.

14.              On the other hand, Mr. Sikander Bakshi, learned counsel for OPs has argued that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not consumer but he is an investor who applied for plot in question for earning benefits and not for the residential purpose of his own. He further argued that that in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in CRM No. M-26292 of 2013 tilted as “Dharam Singh Yadav Vs. State of Haryana”, to ascertain those allottees who have illegally obtained allotment of more than one plot under a reserve category, the record of various Urban Estates was scrutinized and the scrutiny revealed that the complainant has obtained more than one plot under various reserve categories by submitting false, misleading and incomplete affidavit. He further argued that a notice was issued vide Memo No.19891 dated 15.09.2015 to the complainant to show cause as to why the allotment of Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar (DEPER) obtained by him under the reserve category may not be cancelled and FIR be lodged against him for having obtained the plot in question fraudulently by submitting false, misleading and incomplete affidavit and the complainant was also asked to appear in the office of the OP No.2 on 28.09.2015 along with reply/documents and ID Proof, however, he complied with the same and submitted his written reply. He further argued that as per condition No.23 of the allotment letter the complainant was required to submit an affidavit within 30 days to the effect that he have not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserve category in his life time except the plot in question and if the affidavit and certificate submitted by him are found to be false at any stage, then the above allotment shall stand cancelled and deposited amount shall be forfeited by the authority and he shall have no right to claim anything for the same. He further argued that the complainant submitted false and misleading affidavit dated 13.08.2009 according to which he has not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserved category in his life time except Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar as Plot No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula (DEPER) was also originally allotted to him under the reserved category i.e., DEPER. Since, the reply submitted by complainant was not found to be satisfactory and Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar which has been surrendered by the complainant on 14.08.2015 was also not considered due to allotment of double/multiple allotment plot and allotment of Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar was cancelled.

15.              Learned counsel for OPs further argued that complainant himself sent an apology letter dated 28.09.2015 to the OPs for the mistake committed by him and has also requested to take a lenient view of his unintentional mistake by surrendering the 2^nd  plot allotted to him under the DEPER category and the said request of complainant was not found to be satisfactory, so Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar which has been surrendered by the complainant of double/multiple allotment plot and allotment of Plot No.25, sector-5, Hisar was cancelled. Further, he argued that it was the complainant himself, who did not comply with the terms and conditions of the HUDA Policy and rules and regulations of the OP's. Moreover, the contentions of the complainant that he does not fall under the category of multiple allotments as he has not availed the facility of allotment of plot under reserve category (DEPER) after coming into existence of the present policy regarding the multiple allotments of plot are wrong and hence denied. The complainant submitted false, misleading and incomplete affidavit dated 13.08.2009 that he has not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserved category in his life time except Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar as Plot No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula (DEPER) was also originally allotted to him under the reserved category i.e. DEPER.  OP No. 2 has rightly issued an office order vide Endst. No.122383 dated 30.11.2016, whereby the allotment of Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar was cancelled after considering the reply of the complainant and also giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the complainant.  Further, as per the condition No.23 of the allotment letter the complainant was required to submit an affidavit within 30 days to the effect that he have not taken any benefit for getting the plot from any reserve category in his life time except the plot in question and if the affidavit and certificate submitted by him are found to be false at any stage, then the above allotment shall stand cancelled and deposited amount shall be forfeited by the authority and he shall have no right to claim anything for the same. Further, he argued that the complainant was also served with a show cause notice dated 15.09.2015 and he also admitted in his reply and has sent an apology letter dated 28.09.2015 to the OPs for the mistake committed by him and has also requested to take a lenient view of his unintentional mistake by surrendering the 2^nd plot allotted to him under the DEPER category. Finally, he argued that the complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong and is not entitled to any refund and compensation as prayed by him and lastly the OPs prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

16.              In view of the above submission, made by learned counsel for the parties as well as after careful perusal of the entire record, it stands proved that complainant is a retired Army Personnel and he applied for a residential plot at Hisar in an upcoming Army Sector for 1 (one) Kanal residential plot in Sector-5, Hisar in the year 2008, being developed for Defence & Paramilitary Forces Personnel. It also stands proved that in the draw of lot he was allotted Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar having dimension of 15 mtrs X 30 mtrs vide allotment letter/Memo No.11552 dated 30.06.2009 by the OPs and complainant paid total amount of Rs.45,73,209/- towards the cost of the said plot  on different dates to OPs as per their demands till February, 2015. It also stands proved as well as admitted by both the parties that about more than 30 years back before the allotment of above mentioned plot at Hisar, complainant was allotted a 14 Marla Plot bearing No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula on 26.08.1980 and application for said plot was made in year 1979 by the complainant while in service and during his posting as Aide-De-Camp (A.D.C) to Governor Himachal Pradesh. As per complainant, the applications for allotment of said plot at Panchkula were invited by the Army and were processed through Army channels and there was no direct communication in applying or allotment of the said plot at Panchkula with H.U.D.A. The entire process of allotment was completed through Army Channel for serving Army personnel at a time when Panchkula as a city was coming up. On the other hand, as per OPs, the record of various Urban Estates was scrutinized and the scrutiny revealed that the complainant has obtained more than one plot under various reserve categories by submitting a false affidavit because complainant had already been allotted a plot measuring 14 Marla bearing No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula on 26.08.1980. This contention of learned counsel for OPs has no force in as much as it already stands proved that there was no direct communication in applying or allotment of the said plot at Panchkula with H.U.D.A. The entire process of allotment of plot measuring 14 Marla bearing No.315, Sector-12, Panchkula was completed through Army Channel for serving Army personnel at a time when Panchkula city was coming up. It is also pertinent to mention here that way back in year 1979 there was no policy or rule of H.U.D.A that the Defence personnel can avail the facility for allotment of plot under reserve category for Defence only once.

17.              More so, it is amply clear from the own document of OPs i.e. Memo No.A-11-87/805-15 dated 09.01.1987, vide which a change was introduced in the policy for allotment of residential plots in the Urban Estates of Haryana, according to which a person or its dependents cannot acquire more than one plot in an Urban Estate. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plea of learned counsel for OPs regarding obtaining more than one residential plot by the complainant is of no force because from the records it also stands proved that the complainant had already surrendered in the year 2015 the plot measuring 1 (one) Kanal residential plot in Sector-5, Hisar, which was allotted to him in the year 2008. It was in furtherance to his application for surrender that OPs issued a show cause notice to the complainant and in reply to which the complainant explained his position and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant time which resulted in allotment of the plot in question to him by the OPs. But the OPs chose to ignore all the facts presented by the complainant and arbitrarily forfeited the deposited amount while canceling his allotment relating to Plot No.25, Sector-5, Hisar having dimension of 15 mtrs X 30 mtrs on surrender of the allotment vide allotment letter/Memo No.11552, dated 30.06.2009. The fact is that the complainant had surrendered the allotment despite having already paid cost of plot in question i.e. Rs.45,73,209/-.  The OPs in a rather arbitrary manner forfeited the entire amount paid by the complainant over a period of approximately six (06) years i.e. from 2009 to 2015, towards the cost of the plot despite surrender of the allotment by the complainant. This case belies the tall claims of OPs of being a Welfare Housing Organization of State. The complainant is an Army Officer, who had to unnecessarily suffer for a substantial period of time at the hands of OPs due to their (OPs) inhumane and arbitrary approach in not refunding the deposited amount after having accepted the surrender of the allotment of plot by the complainant.

18.              Consequently, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in services of OPs and thus, the complainant after having surrendered his allotment is well within his legal rights to receive refund of the amount of Rs.45,73,209/-  (Rs. Forty five lacs seventy three thousand two hundred nine only), which he had deposited with the OPs. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of physical and mental agony caused to the complainants for his having deposited a huge amount and not even getting his refund despite surrender of his plot. Under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock at the door of this Commission for seeking refund of the amount. In such like cases, the Commission had to deal with the developers with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals. As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

19.              As regards the rate of interest to be awarded, it may be relevant to keep the following factors into consideration. Keeping in view the recent periodic revision of repo rate by Monetary Policy Committee of Reserve Bank of India and consequent upward revision of Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) by the Nationalized Banks, there has been an increase in lending rate by the Nationalized banks. Accordingly it would, in considered view of this Commission, be just fair and reasonable to award 9% as rate of interest to the complainant.

20.              In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the Ops are directed to refund the amount of Rs.45,73,209/-  (Rs. Forty five lacs seventy three thousand two hundred nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant from  the date of their respective deposits till realization.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of 60 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) on account of compensation for mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five only) as litigation charges. It is also made clear that in case of non-compliance of the aforesaid order by the OPs, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attractable.

21.              Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

22.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

23.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

 

Pronounced on 06^th September, 2024

 

                                                            S.C Kaushik                         Naresh Katyal

Member                                 Judicial Member    

Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench