BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 206 of 2015.

                                                Date of Institution:         16.07.2015.

                                                Date of Decision:           18.06.2019.                                      

Jagbir Singh son of Shri Randhir Singh, resident of village Madina (Dhir) (Korshan), Tehsil & District Rohtak.

…..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.       Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula (Haryana).

2.       The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bhiwani (Haryana).

…..Opposite Parties.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Ganesh Bansal, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

              Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he has purchased a plot/booth No.264P, measuring 22.68 Sq. Yards/Mtr situated at City Centre Urban Estate/Mandi Township, Bhiwani on free hold basis for a consideration of Rs.17,64,000/- and allotment memo No. 233 dated 11.1.2008 has been issued in his favour.  It is further alleged that the auction was held in response to all basic amenities and facilities will be provided by the OPs at City Centre Urban Estate/Mandi Township Bhiwani.  It is further alleged that the complainant wants to do business in that shop for his livelihood.  It is further alleged that as per the terms of the auction as well as of allotment order 25% of the sale consideration was to be deposited at the time of auction and remaining 75% price of the plot/booth was to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter or in 10 half yearly installment with 9% interest per annum from the date of issuance of offer of possession.  It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,76,500/- i.e. 10% of the total sale price vide receipt No.12689 dated 22.11.2007 and thereafter the complainant deposited the balance amount of sale price i.e. Rs.2,64,600/- to the OPs vide receipt No. 13555 dated 12.2.2008 and Rs.5,00,000/- vide receipt No. 19790 dated 28.1.2010.  It is further alleged that as per terms & conditions of the auction as well as allotment order, the OPs have promised the complainant that they will offer the possession of the plot after completing all the development within the area and it is specifically mentioned in condition No. 6 of the allotment letter that “the possession of the site will be delivered to the allottee on completion of the development work in the area.  In the case of building, the possession shall however, be delivered within 90 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter”.  It is further alleged that the OPs have failed to prove all the development work i.e. internal and external development work like proper parking, public lavatories, sheds, pathway, sanitation facilities and other basic amenities within the area till today, so the offer of possession is also null and void.  It is further alleged that the OPs without any basis and without completing the basic development, charged Rs.2,64,600/- and Rs.5,00,000/- in excess of 10% amount, whereas till date the site is not developed for running of business for livelihood.  It is further alleged that in the allotment letter it was also mentioned that the allottee shall have to construct the building on the plot as per the approved design within the period of two years from the date of issuance of allotment letter and offer of possession.  It is further alleged that the OPs have failed to provide all the basic amenities and necessary facilities in the area till date after lapse of 7 years duration and the complainant contacted the officials of the OP No. 2 several times and requests them to complete the development work in the area, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited total amount of Rs.9,41,100/- in lieu of the plot in question.  It is further alleged that the OPs are pressurizing to deposit the installment upto date with interests and penal interest and they also want to resume the plot/ booth of the complainant illegally vide their letter dated 3.7.2015.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice OPs appeared and filed contested reply denying the allegations of complainant.  It is alleged that the plot/booth in question was purchased by the complainant in open auction held by the OPs being the highest bidder and as per terms & conditions, the present case does not come within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is further alleged that the complainant has not deposited any installment after 28.1.2010 and now upto date 3.7.2015, there is a total outstanding amount of Rs.18,60,050/- as installments etc. and Rs.4026/- as extension fee due against the complainant, which he has not deposited despite notice. It is further alleged that complainant has filed this false complaint only to avoid the payment of interest other-wise there is no merit in the complaint.  It is further alleged that the OPs have every right to take legal action against the complainant as per the provisions of the HUDA Act if he does not fulfill the terms & conditions of allotment letter.  It is further alleged that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred because the offer of possession was issued on 11.1.2008, whereas the complaint has been filed in the month of July, 2015 after the expiry of a period of 7 years.  It is further alleged that the allotment letter was issued vide memo No. 233 dated 11.1.2008 after completion of development works in the area where plot in question is situated and offer of possession was also made at the time of issuance of allotment letter which is specifically mentioned in clause No. 23A of the allotment letter.  It is further alleged that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as the complainant has contravened the terms and conditions of the allotment letter by not depositing the amount due neither within the stipulated period nor till today despite notice served upon him.  It is further alleged that as per condition No. 20 of allotment letter all disputes and differences arising out of or in any touching of concerning this allotment whatsoever shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chief Administrator or any other officer appointed by him.  It is further alleged that all the basic facilities and development work of the location have been provided and completed earlier like water supply, sewerage, storm water, street light, parking, road, sanitation facilities and other facilities of park at site.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in support of his case placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 in evidence.    

4.                On the other hand ld. counsel for the OPs in support of their case placed on record documents Annexure R-1 to R-5 in evidence.

5.                We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs have failed to provide all the basic amenities and necessary facilities in the area till date and are pressurizing to deposit the remaining amount due.  He placed his reliance upon Civil Appeal No.3122 of 2006, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs Bishamber Dayal Goyal and Ors., decided on 62.3.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  But the same not applicable to the facts of present case due to peculiar facts. 

7.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs also reiterated the contents of the written statement.  Ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that all the facilities and development work on the location have been provided and completed like water supply, sewerage, parking, road etc. and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.  He placed his reliance upon RP No. 1105 of 2012, Madhu Sharma Vs HUDA, decided on 24.5.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, Civil Appeal No. 1994 of 2006, U. T. Chandigarh Vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors., decided on 17.3.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and CWP No.25608 of 2013, Kali Charan Vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.11.2013 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The only plea taken by the complainant is that the development work in the area of the booth in question is not complete by the OPs.  During the pendency of case Shri Suraj Bhan, Advocate was appointed as Local Commission with the direction to visit the spot and to report whether basic amenities in the area of the both in question has been provided or not and Local Commission has submitted its report dated 1.3.2019. From the bare perusal of the LC report, it is clear that almost all the basic amenities like electricity, road, sewerage etc. have been provided by the OPs and on several booths the shops are constructed by their owners.  Thus, it is clearly proved on record beyond doubt that all the development work is complete on the spot. In our view, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, because the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that development work is not completed by the OPs in the area of booth in question, by placing on record some cogent and convincing documentary evidence. 

9.                Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order to cost.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

18.06.2019.         

      (Saroj Bala Bohra)    (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

      Member.                   Member.                         President,

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                       Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.