Haryana

StateCommission

A/485/2016

MAHESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ YADAV

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.485 of 2016

Date of Institution: 30.05.2016

                                                           Date of Decision: 28.07.2016

 

Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh.Chitar Mal C/o Balaji Provisional Store, Bharawas Road, Rewari.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rewari, through Estate Officer, Panchkula.

                                                …..Respondent

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  Neeraj Yadav, Advocate counsel for appellant.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Mahesh Kumar – complainant is in appeal against the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby his complaint against HUDA has been dismissed being not maintainable as his earlier complaint on the same issue had already been decided on 30.08.2000.   
2. In brief, the complainant had purchased a residential plot No.170 in open auction for Rs.31000/- on 10.12.1981 and the plot was allotted vide memo No.2286 dated 19.02.1982. The complainant deposited the amount and possession was given on 16.02.1994 and the site plan was sanctioned by the OP on 15.12.1997. However, as the possession of this plot No.170 had already been given to one Ram Chander Saini who had made construction over the said plot, the complainant approached the District Forum, Rewari. The said Forum vide its order dated 30.08.2000 allowed the complaint and directed the OP- HUDA to hand over the possession of plot No.170 to the complainant after removing the construction which had been raised by one Shanty Devi who was owner of the plot No.171, within two months and cost of the complaint was assessed at Rs.1000/-. After a lapse of 30 years, the complainant was allotted an alternate plot No.171 on 17.02.2012 that too after causing a lot of harassment to him. Aggrieved against this the complainant approached the District Forum seeking interest @24% over the entire amount from the date of deposit till payment and also compensation of Rs.20 lacs for damages and harassment.
3. In reply, OP pleaded that the possession was offered on 03.02.1994 after completion of development works but the complainant avoided to take the possession for the reasons best known to him. The complainant has no cause of action as he was well aware of it. An alternate plot No.171 was allotted to him and the complainant had transferred this plot to one Smt. Manisha and re-allotment letter dated 08.01.2013 has been issued in favour of said Manisha. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part. The learned District Forum found merit in the stand taken by the OP, dismissed the complaint being not maintainable.
4. Before us, the complainant has repeated his allegations that due to the inaction of the OP in handing over the possession of the plot to the complainant, he was compelled to reside in a rented accommodation for a very long period of 30 years. On this account, he was claiming heavy compensation along with consequential relief.  We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record.  The learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant had already filed the complaint No.324 of 1998, which was allowed in his favour. The learned District Forum granted him the necessary relief to which he was found entitled. Having availed the same, the complainant could not file another complaint on the same cause of action, moreso when he has already sold the plot to Smt. Manisha on 08.01.2013. The second complaint has rightly been dismissed by the learned District Forum being not maintainable. We wholly agree with the well reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal.  

 

July 28th, 2016              Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.