DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 224 of 2013 Date of Institution: 08/09.07.2013 Date of Decision: 14.10.2015.
- Jagdish Chander Bishnoi aged 64 years son of Shri Het Ram
- Uma Bishnoi aged 56 years w/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Bishnoi
Both R/o H.No.364, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana.
……Complainants.
Versus
- Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon through its Administrator, Sector-14, Gurgaon.
- Estate Officer-II, Sector-56, HUDA, Gurgaon, Haryana.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.N.K.Yadav, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. Ankush Yadav, Adv for the opposite parties.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that originally Plot No.364, Sector 45, Gurgaon area measuring 292.50 sq. mt was allotted to Sh. Niwas Gupta vide Memo No.327 dated 20.02.1998. Said Sh.Niwas Gupta sought transfer permission from OP-2 in favour of Nitin Kumar which was granted vide permission No.163 dated 06.01.2004 and the said plot was re-allotted to Shri Nitin Kumar vide re-allotment letter No.2256-2257 dated 19.02.2004. The possession of the above said plot was being taken by Shri Nitin Kumar vide Possession Certificate bearing Memo No. SDE(S) 251 dated 27.08.2004 and conveyance deed of said plot was executed on 31.08.2004 in favour of said Nitin Kumar and the same was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon vide Vasika No.11760 dated 02.09.2004. However, said Nitin Kumar through his General Power of Attorney Sh. O.P.Bhatia and Sh. Balvinder Sachdeva sought transfer permission in favour of complainants which was sanctioned by OP-2 vide Memo No.320-321 dated 13.01.2005 and the sale deed was also executed and registered in favour of the complainants vide Sale Deed No.20966 dated 20.01.2005 and the re-allotment letter No.2167-2168 dated 17.02.2005 was issued in favour of the complainants.
2 It is further alleged that when the possession of the said plot was taken by Shri Nitin Kumar on 27.08.2004 and also at the time of executing the conveyance deed on 31.08.2004, on both the occasions the accounts branch of the opposite party no.2 duly calculated and audited the account statement of the plot on the basis of Possession Offer Date determined/treated as 27.08.2004 and showed the balance amount in respect of the said plot as NIL and no any amount concerning installment, enhancement, extension fee, interest was pending against the said plot which is also evident through the RTI reply given by the OP-2 dated 04.10.2012 (Ann C-8 & Ann C-9). The complainants submitted the drawing of the building plan for construction of house on 16.02.2011 but the opposite party no.2 raised illegally objection showing the date of offer of possession as 13.03.2001 and asked the complainants orally to deposit Rs.3,52,356/- with up to date interest immediately otherwise drawing of building plan would not be sanctioned. However, complainants deposited Rs.3,53,000/- under protest vide Receipt No.1625 dated 12.05.2011 (Ann C-15). It is pertinent to mention here that layout cum demarcation plan of Sector-45, Gurgaon became final by way of Drawing No.DTP(G) 1110/2003 dated 01.05.2003 the “Possession Offer Date” cannot be made as 13.03.2001 retrospectively. The complainant requested the opposite parties to treat the date of offer of possession as 27.08.2004 and to refund the amount of Rs.3,53,000/- with interest but of no use. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainants. The complainants prayed that the opposite parties be directed to treat the date of offer of possession as 27.08.2004 instead of Rs.13.03.2001 and to refund Rs.3,53,000/- with interest. They also sought compensation of Rs. 1 Lac. The complaint is supported with an affidavit of complainant Jagdish Chander Bishnoi and the documents placed on file.
2 OPs in their written reply have alleged that possession of the plots was offered to all the plot holders in this block where the plot in question is situated on 13.03.2001. The date of offer of possession was treated as 13.03.2001 as the development works in this area was completed on or before 13.03.2001 and the possession was offered to all the plot holders of this block. Shri Nitin Kumar has already obtained the physical possession on 27.08.2004 of his own sweet will. It is submitted that the demarcation plan of Sector 45 was approved by the competent authority in the year 2001 and only thereafter the possession was offered to the allottees of this block on 13.03.2001. The date of offer of possession was treated as on 13.03.2001 whereas the previous allottee has already taken the possession of the plot on 27.08.2004 by his own sweet will. The complainants have already deposited the amount of Rs.3,53,000/- out of his own sweet will. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainants have filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that initially plot in question was allotted to one Mr. Sri Niwas Gupta by the opposite party vide Memo No.327 dated 20.02.1998 which was got transferred in favour of Nitin Kumar from whom the complainants have purchased the same and was re-allotted by the opposite party in their favour vide Letter No.2167-2168 dated 17.02.2005. However, the possession of the said plot was taken by Shri Nitin Kumar on 27.08.2004 vide Possession Certificate (Ann C-6) and nothing was due towards the plot in question. However, when the complainants submitted drawing of the building plan for construction of house, opposite party no.2 wrongly and illegally raised an objection and demanded Rs.3,52,356/- as due showing the date of offer of possession as 13.03.2001 instead of 27.08.2004. Finding no alternate the complainants deposited Rs.3,53,000/-under protest with the OP-2 vide Receipt No.1625 dated 12.05.2011. Thus, charging Rs.3,53,000/- illegally from the complainants amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Consequently, they sought refund of the same along with compensation and litigation expenses. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainants has placed reliance on HUDA Vs Promila Rani I(2008) CPJ 120 (NC) and HUDA Vs Thakur Dutt III(2010) CPJ 388 (NC).
5 However, the contention of the opposite parties is that possession of the plots was offered to all the plot holders in the block in which the plot of the complainant is situated on 13.03.2001 and by treating the date of offer of possession as 13.03.2001 Rs.3,53,356/- were rightly charged from the complainants. The counsel for the opposite parties has also contended that the demarcation plan of Sector 45, HUDA, Gurgaon was approved by the competent authority in the year 2001 and only thereafter the possession was offered to the allottees on 13.03.2001.
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the possession of the plot in question was given Mr. Nitin Kumar on 27.08.2004 from whom the complainants have purchased the above said plot. However, at the time of transfer in favour of complainants there was nothing due towards the plot in question and accordingly, re-allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainants. However, when the complainants applied for drawing of the building plan the opposite parties raised demand of Rs.3, 52,356/- on the ground that the date of offer of possession of the plot in question was treated as 13.03.2001. The complainants in support of their contention have placed on record the copy of letter bearing Memo No.CTP HUDA/DTP (N) dated 04.11.2003 issued by Chief Administrator HUDA (Town Planning Wing), Panchkula to Estate Officer, Gurgaon regarding offer of possession in Sector 45, Gurgaon. The relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :
“Since the demarcation plan of some of the pockets has been amended, zoning plan of the pockets has also to be amended accordingly. Therefore, the possession interest is to be charged from the date on which revised zoning plan is approved by HUDA.”
The complainants have also placed on record the copy of letter of Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon addressed to one Mr. Surender Kumar Kaushik regarding possession of Plot No.181, Sector 45, Gurgaon in which Estate Officer, Gurgaon has categorically mentioned that
“ the offer of possession of Plot No.181, Sector 45, Gurgaon was made by this office vide letter dated 07.03.2001 but due to revised plan of this pocket (DTP Gurgaon Drawing No.1110 dated 01.05.2003) the date of offer has been treated as 01.05.2003 instead of 07.03.2001 as per the instruction bearing No.7815 dated 04.11.2003.”
The complainants have also placed on record the copies of possession certificates of plots No.1299, 475-P, 661, 1640, 598, 76, 1637-MP, 1610, 1033, 1031 and 1166 in addition to said plot/house No.364 (Ann C-17 to C-27) by which the possession of the plots in Sector 45, Gurgaon was given to allottees on the basis of layout cum demarcation plan bearing Drawing No.DTP(G) 1110/2003 dated 01.05.2003.
The complainants have also placed on record document (Annexure 11) wherein the date of offer of possession has not been mentioned though date of delivery of possession has been shown as 29.08.2004
7 Thus, keeping in view of our above discussion we are of the opinion that the date of offer of possession shall be treated as 27.08.2004 and the opposite parties were not entitled to recover Rs.3,53,000/- from the complainants. Thus, we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, we direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.3,53,000/- to the complainants with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.07.2013 till realization. They are also entitled to compensation of Rs.10000/- for harassment and mental agony. They are also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-. The opposite party shall make the compliance of the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
14.10.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
