Haryana

Panchkula

CC/169/2014

Glory Fert Enclave Coop.Society. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh chopra

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	169 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	04.09.2014
Date of Decision	:	28.04.2015

    

Glory Fert. Enclave Co. Operative Group Housing Society, GH-14, Sector-24, Panchkula through its Member Vaishnu Sharma.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator.
2. Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula.
3. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Amit Singla, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Ashwani Chaudhary, Adv., for the OPs.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant-Society has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that the society has applied for group housing scheme 2005-2006 floated by HUDA. The complainant-society got successful and was allotted site No.GH-14, Sector-24, Panchkula measuring 2000 sq. mtr. at the rate of Rs.4500/- per sq. mtr. vide memo No.EOP/2008/3359 dated 02.04.2008. The complainant-society deposited the requisite amount as mentioned in the allotment letter. As per clause IV of the allotment letter, the possession of the site was also offered by HUDA vide No.4806 dated 23.05.2008. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between E.O., HUDA, Panchkula and the complainant-society vide No.269 dated 08.01.2009 (actually date is 17.09.2008). As per agreement in para 2 (i), if the HUDA failed to complete the construction within three months, the complainant-society was liable for 10% rebate on price of land. The para No.2 (i) is as under:-

“2 (i)  However, if the society/organization completes the construction within three (3) years of the date of possession as mentioned above 10% rebate on price of land would be given and would be adjusted towards the future installment.”

The complainant-society started the construction of flats over the allotted land and completed the construction in January, 2011. The complainant-society wrote letters dated 06.01.2011 and 06.02.2011 regarding completion of construction and obtaining rebate in the cost of land as per para 2 (i) of the agreement to the Op No.3 and later on, a reminder was also sent to Op No.1 but the application of complainant-society was rejected vide No.Z0004/ F0012/ UE020/ 2010/ OCCER/ 001310 dated 31.03.2011on the ground that outstanding amount of Rs.610//- was due against the property. The complainant-society paid the requisite amount of Rs.6108/- on 31.03.2011 vide receipt No.1035. Thereafter, the complainant-society asked the concerned authority to inspect the status of site which was inspected by the HUDA. Further, the complainant-society asked the concerned authority to receive a record note of official proceedings dated 01.04.2011 and they recorded the status that “building is complete at site, but due to non availability of fire fighting certificate O-C cannot be processed further”. The complainant-society has also applied for issuing of No Objection Certificate of Fire Fighting System in the office of Fire Officer/Municipal Corporation, Panchkula vide its application No.GFECGHS/FF/NOC/2011 dated 22.02.2011. The complainant-society received a letter from HUDA vide memo No.EO (P)/2623 dated 08.04.2011 to submit certificate of Fire Fighting System from the concerned authority whereas it was not a pre-requisite condition as per the agreement for getting rebate. The complainant-society again contacted the Fire Officer/M.C. Panchkula who gave a copy of recommendation letter No.101FSP dated 07.04.2011 written by Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Panchkula to Deputy Commission, Panchkula for issuance of No Objection Certificate from Fire safety point of view. In the letter, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Panchkula has recommended for issuance of NOC by mentioning that the Fire Fighting System, installed in the society, has been checked by the Fire Station Officer and found to be good and in running condition and that letter was handed over in the office of Op No.3. Later on, the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula issued the Fire Fighting NOC vide memo No.726 dated 09.06.2011 and also sent a copy to M.C. Panchkula which was received by the complainant-society on 20.06.2011. The complainant-society submitted the Fire Fighting System NOC to Ops on 21.06.2011. The Ops issued the occupation certificate of the building to society vide its letter No.8034 dated 04.11.2011 but the status of the application of the society regarding rebate in land cost as per clause 2 (i) of the agreement was not intimated.  The complainant-society approached the OP No.3 through representations dated 03.02.2012 and 01.07.2013 regarding 10% rebate on the land cost. Later on, the letters dated 19.02.2014 were sent to Ops for providing land cost rebate due to timely completion of the society building at its allotted plot but to no avail. The complainant-society sought information under RTI Act from Op No.3 vide letter dated 07.04.2014 and the complainant-society got reply vide memo No.9796 dated 27.08.2014 from the office of Op No.3 alongwith the copy of proceedings of the meeting held on 18.03.2013 regarding 10% rebate of the society whereby it was intimated that the case for grant of 10% rebate was considered by the committee under the Chairmanship of Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and the same has been rejected on the ground for non-submission of fire fighting certificate at the time of application for occupation certificate by the committee. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. In their reply, the Ops have submitted that the complainant-society applied for allotment of GHS site in scheme of GHS-2005. It is submitted that a letter for allotment of GHS No.14, Sector-24, Panchkula was issued vide memo No.898 dated 03.11.2006. It is submitted that the society was required to execute/submit an acceptance letter in Form A, demand draft and agreement in form C and after execution of the documents, regular allotment letter was to be issued in favour of the society. Thereafter, on completion of formalities, a regular letter of allotment was issued vide memo No.3359-60 dated 02.04.2008 in favour of the society. It is submitted that the possession of site was taken on 23.05.2008 and fresh building plan was approved on 26.03.2009. It is submitted that the complainant-society vide its letter dated 06.01.2011 informed the Ops that the construction work has been completed and 10% rebate in cost of land might be provided to it but no proof of construction as per policy/rules was given. The complainant was advised vide letter dated 04.04.2011 to make an application for occupation certificate and thereafter, matter would be examined regarding rebate. It is submitted that the complainant-society applied for occupation certificate on 31.03.2011 which was rejected in the PPM system due to pending of dues. It is submitted that the application for issuance of occupation certificate was also not accompanied by the Fire Fighting Certificate which was the mandatory requirement. It is submitted that the Fire Fighting Certificate was issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 09.06.2011 and the same was submitted vide letter dated 21.06.2011 to the Ops. It is submitted that the application for issuance of occupation certificate was thereafter, processed and occupation certificate was issued on 04.1.2011. It is submitted that the matter regarding grant of rebate of 10% was duly considered by the committee head i.e. Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula in the meeting which was held on 18.03.2013 and request for grant of rebate was rejected by the committee as fire safety certificate was not submitted which was a mandatory requirement to consider the status of completion of construction. It is submitted that the fire safety certificate was issued on 09.06.201 to the complainant-society but the same was submitted to the Ops on 21.06.2011 and the same was not within three years time as the fire safety certificate was a part of the process of the construction of site. It is further submitted that the present complaint is barred by time as the same is filed after two years of the cause of action. The complainant applied for grant of rebate in January, 2011 after raising the construction and also applied for occupation certificate on 31.03.2011 so, the cause of action if any started from January, 2011 and the present complaint is filed in the year 2014. It is submitted that the complainant ha not availed the alternative remedy available under the HUDA Act as the complainant has not approached the Chief Administrator, HUDA as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the Municipal Office as well as Deputy Commissioner are the necessary parties. It is submitted that Junior Engineer who gave report that building was complete, was not competent authority to decide the issue of grant of rebate which was done by the committee. It is submitted that for the purpose of completion of construction or for purpose of rebate, the submission of a valid application for occupation certificate under the Building Erection Rules is a mandatory requirement which was to be submitted with complete documents as per policy/rules which was fully aware to the society and architect of society. It is submitted that the competent authority to issue fire safety certificate is the Deputy Commissioner and not municipal council. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to substantiate his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-23 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Admittedly, the complainant-society was allotted site No.GH-14, Sector-24, Panchkula measuring 2000 sq. mtr. at the rate of Rs.4500/- per sq. mtr. vide memo No.EOP/2008/3359 dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure C-5). The possession of the said site was also offered vide No.4806 dated 23.05.2008. The possession certificate of the said site was also issued by the Ops on 23.05.2008 (Annexure C-6). Agreement was executed between the complainant-society and E.O., HUDA, Panchkula on 17.09.2008 (Annexure C-7). As per agreement executed between the parties, the complainant-society is eligible for 10% rebate on price of land if it completed the construction within 3 years from the date of possession.
6. The grouse of the complainant-society is that the complainant-society has completed the construction within a period of 3 years from the date of possession of the site and the society is eligible for 10% rebate on the price of land.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant-society started the construction of flats over the allotted land i.e. GH-14, Sector-24, Panchkula and construction was completed in January, 2011. AS per the clause 2 (i) of the agreement (Annexure C-7), the complainant-society applied for the rebate vide their letters dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure C-8) and 06.02.2011 (No copy of letter dated 06.02.2011 has been placed on file by the complainant). However, E.O., HUDA-OP No.3 rejected the application regarding issuance of occupation certificate of the complainant-society on 31.03.2011 as an amount of Rs.6,108/- was due against the property. The complainant-society deposited the demanded amount on 31.03.2011 (Annexure C-11). He further submitted that as per note of official of Ops dated 01.04.2011 (Annexure C-9), the site was inspected by the concerned JE on 05.04.2011 and reported that “In this matter, it is intimated that the fire fighting certificate is not attached in the file. Building is complete at site, but due to non availability of fire fighting certificate O-C cannot be processed further”. The E.O., HUDA, Panchkula-OP No.3 conveyed the same to the society vide their memo dated 08.04.2011 (Annexure C-12). The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the complainant-society requested the Executive Officer/Municipal Council, Panchkula on 22.02.2011 for issuance of No Objection Certificate as the society has already completed the construction and in the said building as per the National Building Code, 2005 fire fighting system has been installed. The Fire Station Officer, Panchkula has also checked the same which was found correct and in a running condition. The Executive Officer/Municipal Council, Panchkula requested the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula vide their letter dated 07.04.2011 for issuance of no objection certificate (Annexure C-11). The Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula on 09.06.2011 had issued no objection (Annexure C-13). No Objection Certificate was valid only for one year from the date of issue of the abovesaid letter. The complainant-society informed the E.O., HUDA-OP No.3 vide their letter dated 21.06.2011 and requested for the issuance of occupation/completion certificate of the abovesaid site. The occupation certificate was issued by the OP No.3-E.O., HUDA, Panchkula on 04.11.2011. He further contented that since the society has completed the flats on the site within 3 years of its handing over possession, the society is eligible for 10% rebate as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops contended that the Ops received the letter dated 06.01.2011 on 07.02.2011 vide diary No.1737 regarding information of construction work and for rebate of 10% in the cost of land but no proof of construction as per policy/rules was attached with the abovesaid letter. The complainant was advised vide their letter dated 04.04.2011 to make an application for occupation certificate and thereafter matter will be examined regarding rebate. The application for occupation certificate should be accompanied the documents mentioned in Annexure R-1. The complainant-society applied for occupation certificate on 31.03.2011 which was rejected in the PPM system as Rs.6,108/- was due against the property. He further stated that the application for issuance of occupation certificate was not accompanied by the fire fighting certificate which was mandatory requirement. The said certificate was issued on 09.06.2011 by the Deputy Commissioner which was submitted by the complainant-society on 21.06.2011 and occupation certificate was issued on 04.11.2011. The issue regarding grant of rebate was considered by the committee head by Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula in the meeting held on 18.03.2013 and request for grant of rebate was rejected by the committee as fire safety certificate was not submitted. He further stated that since the required fire fighting certificate was issued on 09.06.2011 by the Deputy Commissioner and submitted by the complainant-society on 21.06.2011 so the same was not within 3 years time and the society is not entitled to the claim of any benefit of rebate. He further submitted that the fire safety certificate is a part of the process of occupation certificate.
9. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusing the record, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. As per the clause 2 (i) of the agreement, the complainant-society is eligible for the rebate of 10% on the land price if the construction is completed within 3 years from the date of possession. Clause 2 (i) is as under:-

“2 (i)  However, if the society/organization completes the construction within three (3) years of the date of possession as mentioned above 10% rebate on price of land would be given and would be adjusted towards the future installment.”

10. As per report dated 05.04.2011 of the JE at point ‘A’ (Annexure C-9), “Building is complete at side, but due to non submission of fire fighting certificate O-C cannot be processes further”. O-C rejected. On perusal of the letter dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure C-11) written by the Executive Officer/Municipal Council, Panchkula to the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula for issuance of no objection certificate from fire safety point of view, the fire fighting system was installed which was also checked by Fire Station Officer and the same was in order and in running condition. The building was constructed. In view of the clause 2 (i) of the agreement (Annexure C-7), we are of the considered opinion that the building was constructed/completed by the complainant-society within 3 years of the date of possession and the complainant-society is entitled to 10% rebate on price of land. The occupation certificate has no relevancy with the construction in regard to the grant of rebate. The complainant-society has applied for NOC in time i.e. within 3 years and it was not their fault. As regard the compensation for mental agony and harassment, it is well settled law that a corporate entity likes the complainant-society cannot be entitled to compensation for mental agony/harassment.
11. A conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties and documentation annexed therewith, would indicate that the attitude adopted by the Ops, besides being indefensible on the touchstone of the documented terms and conditions reflective of hyper technical and not in accord with the ambience of an organization which announces itself to be in the service of masses. In fact, the grant of requested/entitled rebate would encourage the Co-operative Group Housing Societies which aim at providing roof over the heads of those who are not affluent enough to afford independent houses which fetch sky-rocketing prices therefor. We do not, as an extended limit of the justice delivery system, appreciate it.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is partly allowed and the Ops are directed to grant 10% rebate to the complainant-society on price of land. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
13. Let the order be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

28.04.2015           ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

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

    

    

                                   

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT