BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 314 of 2020. Date of Institution : 07.12.2020.
Date of Decision : 28.08.2024.
Loveleen Nagpal wife of Shri Krishan Kumar Nagpal, resident of 167, DC Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Estate Officer, Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (Formerly known as Haryana Urban Development Authority) Sector 20, HUDA, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (formerly known as Haryana Urban Development Authority) Plot No. C3, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator.
3. Ramesh Lal son of Shri Chaudhary Ram, resident of H. No. 604/8, Fara Mohalla, Near Ram Jahari Mandir, Rohtak- 124001 (First Allottee) Now deceased through his legal heirs:-
- Pankaj Chaba son of Shri Ramesh Lal son of Shri Chaudhary Ram, resident of H. No. 604/8, Para Mohalla, Opp. Near Ram Jahari Mandir, Rohtak- 124001.
4. Puneet Verma son of Shri Jagdish Rai Verma, resident of H. No. 2E, Model Town, Hisar, District Hisar (Re-allottee).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.K. Malik, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. Rajnish Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.3 (i)
Opposite party no.4 already deleted.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 initially against the opposite parties no.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to OPs) and thereafter got impleaded LR of op no.3 after death of op no.3.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant out of her lifetime savings had purchased a plot measuring 166.50 sq. meter bearing no. 2064, Sector 20, Part-III, HUDA, Sirsa from op no.4 against valuable consideration and at the time of purchase of plot, the complainant approached the ops no.1 and 2 and verified the facts regarding payment of consideration of the plot as well as status and ownership of the same. Op no.1 and 2 accordingly verified the balance/ due payment against the plot as well as other relevant information regarding title, dues, status etc. and also accepted the application for transfer of the plot in favour of complainant after receiving the due payments and charges for transfer alongwith required documents from the complainant and also got completed all the formalities in this regard and had re-allotted the aforesaid plot to the complainant vide re-allotment letter dated 22.08.20214 and thus complainant had become the re-allottee of the said plot and also consumer of ops no.1 and 2. The possession of the plot has also been delivered to her at the spot. That at the time of transfer of allotment of the plot to the complainant, the op no.4 provided some photocopies of the record claiming himself to be re-allottee of the said plot and also claimed that he had purchased the same from op no.3 after complying with all the necessary and requisite formalities and after clearance of dues and balances qua the ops no.1 and 2 and after obtaining NOC in this regard from ops no.1 and 2 applied for transfer of the plot in his favour and his application was also accepted and allowed by ops no.1 and 2 after receiving the entire balance as well as charges etc. from him. In this manner, at the time of purchase of plot by complainant from op no.4, nothing was due to be paid to the ops no.1 and 2 and all dues were already paid as per schedule of the payment given in the allotment and re-allotment letters by the then allottee and re-allottee and ops no.1 and 2 had nothing to recover from the complainant.
3. It is further averred that being in need of money, the complainant vide agreement of sale dated 06.08.2020 had agreed to sell out the aforesaid plot to one Smt. Neelam Rani wife of Shri Rajesh Kumar, resident of Bhiwani and the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was agreed to be fixed as 03.11.2020. That at that time complainant had taken earnest money from the purchaser and remaining amount of sale consideration was agreed to be paid by the purchaser at the time of sale deed. As per the norms, before execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the purchaser, the complainant had to get executed and registered a conveyance deed from the ops no.1 and 2 in her favour and for the said purpose she applied for the same with op no.1 and 2 and in response to the same, the ops no.1 and 2 vide text message dated 27.08.2020 asked the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2210/- which was also got verified by the complainant through online profile of ops no.1 and 2 and accordingly the same was deposited by complainant with them vide challan no. 498886 dated 27.08.2020. An application relating to the allotment of property ID was also moved by complainant to the MC Sirsa on 25.08.2020 and at that time No Dues Certificate was issued by the MC Sirsa on 09.09.2020 after payment of property tax of Rs.456/-. It is further averred that conveyance deed application was filed on 21.09.2020 regarding whicha gain complainant received a text message on 21.09.2020 and thereafter on 01.10.2020 a text message was received from ops no.1 and 2 vide which it was informed to the complainant that her application for execution of conveyance deed has been rejected on which she alongwith her husband and son reached to the office of op no.1 where Shri Naresh Kumar Accountant met them and stated that their application was rejected as an excess amount of Rs.67,995/- was refunded to the first allottee/ owner i.e. op no.3 on 06.11.2009 vide cheque no. 0481753 against memo no. 9159. It was further informed to the complainant that op no.3 mistakenly deposited the amount of Rs.1,93,911/- while the actual installment amount was Rs.1,25,916/- and also provided the photostat copy of application for refund alongwith the photocopy of cheque. It was also admitted by the above said Accountant and their present officials that due to their own default, negligence and mistake the entry regarding refund of Rs.67,995/- was not updated in their records and HUDA’s plot and property management system and due to that reason till rejection of the application of conveyance deed, their account books and property management system and their computer was not showing any due amount against the plot in question and due to that reason they had issued No Objection Certificate and accepted the application of transfer of property in favour of op no.4 and thereafter in favour of complainant whereas they also admitted that payment was refunded to op no.3 while he was their allottee.
4. It is further averred that from the very first day till modification of the account and property management system, their system reflects that they had received Rs.1,93,911/- from first allottee and accordingly payment was charged by op no.3 i.e. allottee from re-allottee i.e. op no.4 and thereafter op no.4 charged the same from the complainant. The complainant also felt about some foul play regarding conspiracy of fetching money from her by op no.3 in connivance with some officials of ops no.1 and 2. After re-allotment of the said plot, the complainant deposited the enhanced amount whatever claimed by op no.1 time and again but later on the department recalculated the enhancement amount and found that complainant had deposited the excess amount of enhancement amount and refunded the amount of Rs.32,867/- being excess amount vide their memo no. 414 dated 30.01.2015 through cheque no. 438738 dated 27.01.2015 and even at that particular time, they did not claim any such alleged due amount from the complainant. It is further averred that on rejection of the application of complainant, the op no.1 updated the account of complainant through their PPM system on 01.10.2020 as online system was still showing NIL due against the complainant and she also followed up the same taking rounds to the office of ops no.1 and 2 on 05.10.2020, 06.10.2020, 08.10.2020, 09.10.2020 and on 13.10.2020 because the complainant entered into sale agreement with the purchaser and as per agreement if complainant fails to get executed and registered the sale deed in favour of purchaser, she is liable to bear the consequences of the same. It is further averred that husband of complainant is a heart patient and on being harassed by ops no.1 and 2 he had become seriously ill and had faced severe heart problem as well as problem of high BP and complainant had to get him admitted in a hospital at Gurugram which resulted into unnecessary harassment and financial loss. That up to 23.10.2020 they kept on contacting the ops no.1 and 2 continuously and also kept on checking the account of the plot online through their system which was showing balance as Nil. She also tried to contact to Mr. Sanjay Sharma posted at Head Office of the department but nobody dared to listen the genuine request of complainant, hence on 26.10.2020 the complainant, her husband and son visited the office of op no.2 in this regard where they met with someone who told that concerned officer is Mr., Naveen Tiwari, who was on leave on that day. On 27.10.2020 the complainant again submitted reminder through PPM system of ops no1. And 2 and on 02.11.2020 first reply from the concerned officer Mr. Naveen Tiwari was received by op no.1 mentioning therein “Please update this entry at your end” but however as the aforesaid issue was not resoled by ops, therefore, complainant was left with no other alternative but to make request to the purchaser to extend the date for execution and registration of the sale deed and thereafter on 10.11.2020 the complainant and her son again reached to the office of op no.2 where they met with Naveen Tiwari and on their various requests he made the entry in PPM system, however, the entry made in the system was of Rs.1,97,465/- instead of Rs.67,995/- and they asked about its reason but the concerned officer refused to explain and told that this amount of Rs.1,97,465/- consisting the interest w.e.f. 2009 till 10.11.2020 alongwith delay charges and other charges over the amount of Rs.67,995/-. It is further averred that complainant again told the concerned officer that there is no fault on the part of complainant till date and moreover, there was no notice in this regard neither to the re-allottee nor to the complainant till date, hence they have no right to charge any amount on account of interest and delay charges and complainant is entitled to get the conveyance deed executed and registered in her favour with immediate effect without charging anything and complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment and losses unnecessarily caused to her but ops no.1 and 2 did not adhere to the request of complainant and refused to admit her claim. That thereafter complainant also contacted the ops no.3 and 4 and asked them to clarify the above said dispute and to clear the payment, if any due against them before the date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed but they also did not take much interest and flatly refused to execute and got registered the conveyance deed in favour of complainant without payment of amount of Rs.1,97,506/-. It is further averred that forced with the limitation of execution and registration of the sale deed, the complainant was left with no option but to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,97,506/- with ops no.1 and 2 under protest vide challan no. 507748 dated 11.11.2020 although there was no such liability of the complainant to pay the same and as such complainant is legally entitled to get the said amount refunded and to be compensated in this regard but ops have declined to admit the claim of complainant. It is further averred that from the whole episode, it is very clear that ops no.1 and 2 itself refunded the amount to the first allottee (op no.3) in the year 2009 but they did not update their account and shown paid amount without deducting the refunded amount from Rs.1,93,911/- and shown that op no.3 paid Rs.1,93,911/- which entry remained continue till last week and thereafter op no.3 charged the same from op no.4 while transferring the allotment in his favour and op no.4 charged the same from complainant in the same manner whereas op no.3 was well aware about refund of amount as he received but despite that he had charged the same from the subsequent re-allottee with malafide intention due to gross deficiency and negligence on the part of ops no.1 and 2 due to which complainant has also suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to make refund of the amount of Rs.1,97,506/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till final realization and also to pay a sum of Rs. two lacs as compensation for harassment, Rs.50,000/- as penalty on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also to pay litigation expenses.
5. On notice, ops no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant was rightly asked to deposit the amount. The application regarding execution of the conveyance deed has been rightly and lawfully rejected as an excess amount of Rs.67,995/- was refunded to the first allottee. However, the error shown is due to clerical and technical reason and same is not the result of any negligence on the part of answering ops. It is further submitted that no harassment was ever caused by answering ops to the complainant rather the same was due to the error in the PPM system and as such complainant is not entitled to any compensation in this regard. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 made.
6. On being impleaded as LR of op no.3 and on notice, the legal representative of op no.3 also appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is correct that complainant entered in agreement to sell with regard to the plot in question and subsequently she deposited some amount with different authorities under various heads. The contents mentioned with regard to release of extra money by op no.1 to op no.3 are just imaginary and having no concrete grounds as it was orally conveyed to complainant. The complainant has fabricated the facts for her own convenience and putting false and baseless allegations without having any concrete grounds or evidence. It is a matter of fact that op no.3 was original allottee of op no.1 and subsequently op no.4 became the re-allottee of op no.2. It is further submitted that complainant purchased the said plot in 2014 and till 2020 when she decided to dispose off the same, she never inquired about the outstanding or excess balances being stand on said plot and all together in 2020 she did all exercise and just to wriggle out from her obligations and responsibility she started blaming on ops of making conspiracy. The complainant never approached any of the ops properly and was only making random enquiries. All averments mentioned with regard to meeting with officials of op no.2 are imaginary and only an attempt to mislead this Commission. It is further submitted that complainant never approached the op no.3. The op no.3 expired on 01.11.2020 and complainant was not aware of the said fact. The complainant is even still not aware about the legal heirs of op no.3 and has submitted false submissions. It is further submitted that no liability or obligations arises on the part of op no.3 and it was the negligence of complainant only who did not hade complete knowledge of outstanding on the above said plot and did not reconciled with books of op no.1. The complainant never bothered to approach any of the ops to match the same and when op no.1 raised liability against the complainant, the complainant started putting false allegations and also defaming the ops for unfair trade practices as well as negligence. The complainant is out of limitation and no such cause of action has been arises specially against op no.3. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
7. Op no.4 failed to appear despite notice and as such op no.4 was proceeded against exparte.
8. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and Annexures C1 to C24.
9. Ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Estate Officer, HSVP Sirsa as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. Ld. counsel for op no.3 (i) suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.3 may be read in evidence.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
11. The ops no.1 and 2 have asserted that application of complainant regarding execution of the conveyance deed has rightly and lawfully been rejected as an excess amount of Rs.67,995/- was refunded to the first allottee i.e. op no.3 Ramesh Lal since deceased and the error shown is due to clerical and technical and same is not the result of any negligence on the part of ops no.1 and 2. However, the ops no.1 and 2 have not explained the reason that when amount of Rs.67,995/- was refunded to the op no.3 then how and as to why the complainant was forced to deposit an amount of Rs.1,97,506/- which was deposited by her vide challan dated 11.11.2020 as is evident from copy of challan Annexure C6. It is proved on record from acknowledgment slips/ receipts as well as demand draft that first allottee and re-allottee of the plot in question duly deposited the amounts due against them whenever claimed by the ops no.1 and 2 from them. It has also come on record that vide letter dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure C23), an amount of Rs.32,867/- was also refunded to the complainant being excess amount deposited by complainant due to reduction of enhancement cost. Ultimately the complainant got deposited the said amount of Rs.1,97,506/- with ops no.1 and 2 under protest. It cannot be said that amount of Rs.1,97,465/- consisted interest w.e.f. 2009 till 10.11.2020 alongwith delay charges and other charges over the amount of Rs.67,995/- when allottee and re-allottee of the plot in question were already depositing the due amounts to the ops no.1 and 2 and for the mistake if any of the ops no.1 and 2 regarding refund of the amount of Rs.67,995/- the complainant could not be asked to deposit the said amount alongwith interest and other charges due against any other person/ first allottee. So, the ops no.1 and 2 should not have got deposited the amount of Rs.67,995/- or any other amount from the complainant and from the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, it is proved that act and conduct of the ops regarding cancellation of conveyance deed for want of above said amount is wrong and illegal and ops no.1 and 2 have wrongly got deposited the amount of Rs.1,97,506/- from the complainant and as such complainant is entitled to refund of the said amount from ops no.1 and 2.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 and 2 and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to make refund of the amount of Rs.1,97,506/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 07.12.2020 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops no.1 to 2 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua remaining ops stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 28.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
