Haryana

Ambala

CC/424/2018

Dr Ashwani Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Antal

04 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 424 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution  :  20.12.2018.

                                                          Date of decision     :  04.03.2020.

 

Dr. Ashwani Sharma son of Shri Baldev Sharma, resident of 406, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

 

 

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Ambala.

 

               ..…. Opposite Party.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri G.S. Antal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri C.S Bindra, Advocate, counsel for OP.         

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To remove/shift the main hole of the sewerage from the plot of the complainant.
2. To exempt the complainant from paying extension fee approximately of Rs.1,76,675/- (i.e. from the date of its re-allotment till the date of filing of the complaint) and further not to charge the same till the removal of the main hole from the site.
3. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
4. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.
382.  

Any other order or relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a plot No.732 measuring 136 sq. metre situated at Sector-10, Urban Estate, Ambala City from Shri Lalit Kumar Sharma, vide re-allotment letter No.9251 dated 12.12.2003. Complainant paid the balance installments regularly to the OP as per the schedule mentioned in the said re-allotment letter. During the initial period there was no development of roads, sewerage pipe line etc. and the OP offered the paper possession. In the year 2009-10, complainant intended to raise the construction over it after getting its site plan sanctioned. Accordingly, he submitted an application dated 14.01.2009, for demarcation of his plot with the OP. At that point of time, there were thick bushes and the land was uneven, due to which the area of plot could not be properly and accurately ascertained. The concerned JE of the OP was unable to reach to the actual plot, due to thick bushes, so by standing far off from the plot, he showed the location of plot to the complainant and told him that the length of plot is 18 metres and width is of 7.6 metres. Soon, thereafter complainant inspected the plot and measured its length and width and while constructing the boundary wall, he was surprised to found that the main hole of the sewerage which was laid down somewhere in the year 2008-09, was falling underneath the front side of the boundary of his plot. He requested the OP for removal of the main hole. After persistent follow up, the OP instead of changing the location of the main hole, had only changed the direction of the slab covering the main hole. In the year 2011, the complainant met the then XEN, HUDA, Mr. Malik and told him about the existing problem of having main hole underneath the front side of the boundary of his plot. He advised the complainant to submit an application for removal of the main hole. Accordingly, he moved an application with the OP, which was marked to Mr. Sukhbir Singh, the then JE, Sector 9. Complainant met the said JE and apprised him about the problem, who assured him for doing the needful. Complainant requested the OP several times from removal of the main hole but nothing was done by it. In the month of February, 2015, he again met the XEN,  Mr. Hooda for removal of the main hole, who told him to contact the then SDO, Mr. Gupta. Complainant met Mr. Gupta and showed him the site, he assured the him that the main hole would be removed within a week. But when nothing was done, then complainant submitted a letter alongwith photographs of the main hole to OP i.e. Estate Officer on 24.03.2015, and requested for the removal of main hole from the front side of the boundary of his plot. Even thereafter, nothing was done by OP, so the complainant again submitted another letter dated 07.09.2015, to the OP which was duly registered at Sr. No.3278 on 08.09.2015, in the diary dispatch register. Inspite of several requests, when nothing was done by the OPs, the he served a legal notice dated 18.04.2016, upon the OP and called upon it to remove/change the course of sewerage line beyond the area of plot No.732, Sector-10, Ambala City, so that the complainant could construct his plot and save him from paying the extension fee. He further served a legal notice upon the OP on 02.01.2017, but of no avail. By not changing/removing the course of sewage line beyond the area of plot No.732, Sector-10, Ambala City, the OP had committed deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and no jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that if complainant took the possession on documents only then he himself is at fault and has violated the principal of “Caveat Emptor”. Physical possession was given to him as per his entire satisfaction. As per lay out plan of the HUDA, the sewerage system is perfectly built. There is no boundary wall or any other wall on the plot as on date. The sewerage pipeline is well outside the plot and that pipeline is common for all other plots. No objection has ever been raised by anyone in this regard. The sewerage pipeline does not have any impact whatsoever on the plot of the complainant or any other plot. The complainant neither had disclosed the name of the persons who attended the meeting nor the date and time nor had given reference of letters/applications moved before the OPs. No legal notice has been received by them from the complainant. In fact the officials of the OP had  visited and inspected the plot and found no infirmity in the sewerage pipe line or with any other sanitary system. The pipeline & main hole have been laid in cemetery and passes from the front side of all the plots. No other plot holder had raised any objection, qua the pipeline. The complainant has filed the present complaint in order to avoid to pay the extension fee. The layout plan of the entire sector is duly approved by the town planner and architect, which now, on the instance of the complainant cannot be changed, which would be detrimental to the other residents as well. The sewerage pipe line is essential public health necessity and disturbing the same may cause serious health hazards to the residents and public at large and the complainant is unnecessarily without comprehending these serious issues has filed the frivolous litigation. Denying rest of the allegations, made in the complaint prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure-CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-26 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavits of Shri Sunil Kumar JE, HSVP, Ambala as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, vide re-allotment letter dated 12.12.2003, Annexure C1, the plot in question was re-allotted to the complainant by the OP. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that in the year 2009-10, to construct the plot, complainant moved an application dated 14.01.2009, with the OP, for demarcation of his plot. The land was uneven and covered with thick bushes, due to which the concerned J.E., who went for demarcation of the plot, was unable to reach the site and had shown the location of the plot from far away to the complainant and told that the plot is 18 metre in length and 7.6 metres in width. However, on the day when the complainant started construction, it was found that main hole of the sewerage falls within the boundary of his plot. Even this fact got established from the report of Local Commissioner. By not removing the main hole from the boundary of the plot of the complainant and by imposing extension fee the OPs have committed deficiency in service.

                   On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for the OP vehemently argued that as per the lay out plan of HUDA, the sewerage system was perfectly built. From the report of the Local Commissioner, it is clear that the main hole of the sewerage is in front of the plot in question. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to avoid to pay the extension fee and as such, the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                   From the report dated 23.10.2019, of the Local Commissioner and the photographs, it is quite clear that some part of the main hole of the sewerage falls within the boundary of the plot of the complainant. Since, some part of the main hole falls inside the plot of the complainant as a result whereof, complainant could not raise the construction on his plot, therefore same needed to be removed/shifted. The OP by not removing/shifting the main hole of the sewerage from the boundary of the plot of the complainant and by levying extension fee have committed deficiency in service and is thus liable to remove/shift the main hole of the sewerage from the boundary of the plot of the complainant and shall not charge any extension fee from the complainant. The OP is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To remove/shift the main hole of the sewerage from the plot of the complainant.
2. Not to charge any extension fee till the removal/shifting of the main hole from the said plot.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
4. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

                  

                   The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :04.03.2020.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

           Member                             Member                          President

                                                                                      DCDRF, Ambala.