Haryana

StateCommission

A/84/2015

MANJIT SINGH & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ SOBTI

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.84 of 2015

                                                        Date of Institution: 22.01.2015                           Date of Decision: 09.12.2016

 

1. Manjit Singh S/o Sh.Udham Sigh
2. Harpreet Singh S/o Sh.Udham Singh
3. Udham Singh, S/o Sh.Hardit Singh

All are resident of H.No.1055, Mohalla Govind Pura Town, Manimajara U.T., Chandigarh.

…..Appellants

Versus

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

…..Respondents

 

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Neeraj Sobati, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

Mr.Rajesh Kaul, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by the complainant that property in dispute which was purchased by Gopal Sethi and re-allotted in their name vide letter dated 01.01.2008.  After purchase they  paid entire amount by way of six installments and asked O.Ps to issue NO Objection Certificate (NOC) in their favour. Instead of issuing NOC it was alleged by them that they failed to take possession within three years from allotment and were liable to pay Rs.2,14,550/- as of penalty.  They told O.Ps. that they had not received any letter regarding officer of possession.  As they were scared about resumption of plot Rs.2,14,550/- were paid on 31.12.2013.  Thereafter possession certificate was issued on 15.01.2014 and NOC on 06.02.2014. When they obtained copy of letter about offer of possession under Right to Information Act, 2005 (In short “RTI”) it came to their notice that there was cutting on the dates to show that the same was issued on  26.08.2010.  In this way they were unnecessarily burdened with the penal amount of Rs.2,14,550/- O.Ps. be directed to refund that amount and to pay other compensation as mentioned in relief clause.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting their averments and alleged that they were re-allottees and could not be considered consumer as opined in first appeal No.177 of 2005 titled as HUDA Vs. Ashwani Gupta decided on 13.06.2011 by State Commission relying upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  HUDA Vs. Raje Ram 2009 (1) CPJ 56.  Initially NOC was not issued because they did not deposit the amount due towards them.  Out of Rs.2,14,550/- principal was Rs. 2,02,884/- and Rs.6170/- were adjusted towards delayed interest and Rs.200/- towards possession interest. They were liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. There was no necessity to issue fresh letter of possession after repurchase by them.  Objections about maintainability, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties leaned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.12.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainants have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for O.P. vehemently argued that possession was offered to complainants vide letter dated 26.08.2010, copy of which is Ex.C-7.  Even thereafter possession was not obtained by the original allottee or the complainants. There was no necessity to issue fresh notice to complainants about possession when previous notice was already issued. The amount due was specifically mentioned in letter dated 26.08.2010 which was not paid by them and that is why learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  From the perusal of letter dated 26.08.2010 it is clear that offer of possession was printed in the name of Gopal Sethi, but, lateron the same was smeared with ink and name of Manjit Singh was introduced. In this way O.Ps. have tried to show that letter was sent to complainants on the aforesaid date just to cover up lapse on their part. Had this letter been written to complainants then there would not have been over-writing or cutting. The plot was allotted to them vide letter dated 01.01.2008, copy of which is Annexure C-2.  As per this letter interest @ 11% was to be paid on the balance amount from the date of offer of possession. As already mentioned above, when O.Ps. failed to prove the offer of possession, they were not liable to pay any interest. It is not the case of re-allottee but actually the issuance of letter about possession which is not proved.  So in these circumstances the demand raised by the O.Ps. was not justified.  Resultantly impugned order dated 17.12.2014 is set aside and complaint is allowed. The O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.2,54,000/- to the complainants alognwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  The complainants are also held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.11,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

 

December 09th, 2016                 Urvashi Agnihotri                       R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                 Member                                    Judicial Member                                                            Addl. Bench                              Addl.Bench