BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.207 of 2013
Date of Institution : 20.11.2013
Date of Decision : 1.9.2016.
Harisha Mehta wife of Sh. Virender Mehta, resident of village Siwan, now residing at House No.140/19, HUDA, Kaithal.
……Complainant. Versus.
- Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………… PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…MEMBER.
Present: Shri Virender Mehta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. G.K. Saraf, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Initially the present complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal and thereafter on the reference of the President of that Forum that complainant is working as Member in that Forum, the case was transferred to this Forum vide order dated 21.10.2013 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
2. The case of the complainant is that she was allotted a residential plot no.1273 measuring 14 marlas in Sector 18, Urban Estate Kaithal on free hold basis vide allotment dated 20.7.2010. As per term No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of plot was to be offered to the complainant within a period of three years from the date of allotment only after completion of development works in the area of plot of complainant. As per term no.6, the interest shall however accrue from the date of offer of possession of plot in question but the possession of plot shall be offered only after completion of development works i.e. providing of sewerage and water facility, electricity, roads, streetlight, park and other amenities. The opposite parties failed to develop the area of Sector 18, but to grab the interest from the allottee, they offered the possession of plot in question vide offer of possession letter bearing Memo No.Z0004/E0007/UE015/OFPOS/0000000056 dated 25.11.2012 without completing the development works only to cover the period of three years as mentioned in the term no.7 of allotment letter which is admittedly an example of unfair trade practice and it is a deficiency in service on the part of ops. It is further averred that after receipt of offer of possession letter in the first week of December, 2012, she visited the site of plot and found that there is no any development in the whole sector especially in the plot of complainant as there is neither sewerage and water line nor street light and roads have been provided to the plot. The complainant has approached a number of times to op no.2 for providing the amenities in the area of plot but they have lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally assured to deposit the next installment alongwith possession interest and thereafter immediately the remaining facilities will be provided. Accordingly, she deposited the installment alongwith possession interest as mentioned in the letter for offer of possession. However, inspite of above said assurance by op no.2, area of plot has not been developed till date. The offering of possession of plot without completing the development works and charging of possession interest on the remaining installments w.e.f.25.11.2012 is illegal, arbitrary and against the terms and conditions of allotment letter. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Upon notice, Ops appeared and contested the case by filing reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of material facts. It has been submitted that complainant has already transferred the plot No.1273 in Sector 18, Urban Estate Kaithal in favour of Smt. Prabha Aggarwal wife of Sh. Jagdish Kumar, r/o H.No.299, Sector 19 (I) HUDA, Kaithal vide re-allotment letter dated 4.10.2013. However, as per letter No.5262 dated 29.8.2012 of Executive Engineer HUDA, Electrical Sub Division, Panchkula and letter bearing No.3366 dated 19.10.2012 issued by SDE, HUDA Kaithal, the development work has already been completed in Sector 18, HUDA. So, the ops are legally empowered to charge the possession interest after giving offer of possession dated 25.11.2012 and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant has placed on record her own affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sanjay Kumar, Photographer as Ex.C2, receipt of Rs.240/- charged by Photographer as Ex.C3, photographs Ex.C4 to C17, title of complaint case Satish Kumar etc. vs. HUDA pending in the DCDRF, Kaithal as Ex.C18, report of local commissioner in that case as Ex.C19, information under RTI Act as Ex.C20, Ex.C21 and Ex.C22. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavits Ex.R1 to R4 and documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R69.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. There is no dispute that plot bearing No.1273 measuring 14 Marlas in Sector 18, HUDA, Kaithal was allotted to the complainant on 20.7.2010. The complainant by way of photographs, report of Local Commissioner in case titled as Satish Mittal etc. vs. HUDA Ex.C19 has proved on record that development work was not completed by the opposite parties before offering of possession of the plot to the complainant on 25.11.2012 and development work was continuing at the spot. However, it is also to be seen that complainant before filing of the present complaint applied to the opposite parties for transfer of plot in question in favour of Smt. Prabha Aggarwal on 29.8.2013 as is evident from application for transfer of plot Ex.R12. The complainant was permitted to transfer the above mentioned plot to Smt. Prabha Aggarwal vide letter dated 3.9.2013 placed on file as Ex.R16 and on fulfillment of all the required formalities, the above said plot has been re-allotted to Smt. Prabha Aggarwal as is evident from Re-allotment letter dated 4.10.2013 Ex.R23. Thus, the complainant had already sold to the plot in question to Smt. Prabha Aggarwal before filing of the present complaint which has been filed on 20.11.2013 and therefore, the complainant had ceased to have any interest in the plot. She cannot be said to be the consumer of opposite parties on the date of filing of the present complaint and complaint therefore, is not maintainable before this Forum. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the observations of our own Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Krishan Lal Malik, F.A. No.456 of 2014 decided on 17.10.2014.
7. Resultantly, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant may approach appropriate Forum/ Court for her redressal. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:1.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
