Haryana

Kaithal

254/19

M/s Shiv Ganga Auto Store - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Jagjit Singh

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.254/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:28.03.2023.

M/s. Shiv Ganga Auto Store through its proprietor Sh. Krishan Goel son of Sh. Narata Ram r/o House No.613/12, Gali No.1, Ward No.12, Amar Garh Gamri, Kaithal presently residing at Baddi Distt. Solan (H.P.).

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal.
2. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Subhash Chugh, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        M/s. Shiv Ganga through its proprietor Sh. Krishan Goel-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the individuals or firms were asked to submit their applications to the concerned Estate Officer within the prescribed period alongwith earnest money equal to 10% of the cost as per the procedure laid down.  It is alleged that the complainant duly applied alongwith 10% earnest money as-well-as relevant documents for the allotment of the booth in Sector-25, Urban Estate Kaithal i.e. Transport Nagar, Kaithal for earning livelihood and the complainant was allotted a repair/spare booth site No.262 in Sector-25, Urban Estate Kaithal as per the draw held on 23.07.2014.  It is further alleged that the above-said booth was allotted in favour of complainant vide letter of allotment dt. 06.08.2014 which inter-alia provided that the complainant would deposit an amount of Rs.88,313/- within 30 days of its issue to complete payment of 25% and would deposit the remaining amount i.e. Rs.4,51,555/- at his option, either in one lump-sum, without interest within 60 days of its issue or with interest @ 12% p.a. in ten half yearly equal installments after completing the necessary formalities by the OPs.  It is further alleged that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- on 23.10.2018 and Rs.2,00,000/- on dt. 01.03.2019 in the account of Ops and thus, the amount of Rs.5,37,186/- has already been deposited by the complainant.  The case of the complainant is that the Ops have charged an amount of Rs.1,03,995/- as delay interest and an amount of Rs.49,256/- as possession interest out of above-said installment of Rs.1,90,000/- and further they have charged Rs.17,196/- as delay interest and Rs.5343/- as possession interest out of above-said payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and thus, total amount of Rs.1,75,790/- has been charged as delay interest and possession interest from the complainant.  It is further alleged that the rules and regulations of HUDA clearly provides that the possession shall be delivered on completion of development work.  The Ops are under legally obligation to provide the basic amenities and complete the development work before the possession is offered.  It is further alleged that the letter of offer of possession dt. 22.07.2016 issued to the complainant was meaningless, illegal, null and void as the complainant could not carry out any construction at the site on account of situation of the Transport Nagar at the spot.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppels; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint; that the allotment letter of the booth was issued in favour of the complainant.  The complainant accepted the terms and conditions of allotment of plot and is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of allotment letter.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never objected to the development works of HSVP nor lodged any objection regarding the development work.  So, the interest was rightly charged by the OPs as the development work was completed within time.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C19 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the individuals or firms were asked to submit their applications to the concerned Estate Officer within the prescribed period alongwith earnest money equal to 10% of the cost as per the procedure laid down.  It has been argued that the complainant duly applied alongwith 10% earnest money as-well-as relevant documents for the allotment of the booth in Sector-25, Urban Estate Kaithal i.e. Transport Nagar, Kaithal for earning livelihood and the complainant was allotted a repair/spare booth site No.262 in Sector-25, Urban Estate Kaithal as per the draw held on 23.07.2014.  It has been further argued that the above-said booth was allotted in favour of complainant vide letter of allotment dt. 06.08.2014 with the condition that the complainant would deposit an amount of Rs.88,313/- within 30 days of its issue to complete payment of 25% and would deposit the remaining amount i.e. Rs.4,51,555/- at his option, either in one lump-sum, without interest within 60 days of its issue or with interest @ 12% p.a. in ten half yearly equal installments after completing the necessary formalities by the OPs.  It has been further argued that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- on 23.10.2018 and Rs.2,00,000/- on dt. 01.03.2019 in the account of Ops and thus, the amount of Rs.5,37,186/- has already been deposited by the complainant.  It has been further argued that the Ops have charged an amount of Rs.1,03,995/- as delay interest and an amount of Rs.49,256/- as possession interest out of above-said installment of Rs.1,90,000/- and further they have charged Rs.17,196/- as delay interest and Rs.5343/- as possession interest out of above-said payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and thus, total amount of Rs.1,75,790/- has been charged as delay interest and possession interest from the complainant.  It has been further argued that the letter of offer of possession dt. 22.07.2016 may kindly be declared as null and void and the Ops be directed to issue fresh letter of possession after completion of development work.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the site-plan which is Annexure-C8, wherein it has been stated that the facilities mentioned at Sr.No.1 to 24 should be provided but the said facilities were not provided by the OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has also placed on file photographs which are Annexure-C9 to Annexure-C9.  Ld. counsel for the complainant prayed that the offer of possession letter dt. 22.07.2016 may be declared as null and void the amount charged from him may be refunded alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.  There is deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishamber Dayal Goyal and others, 2015(3) SCC (Civil) 407 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) and Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Shushila Devi Sharma, 2011(15) SCC 214 (Hon’ble Supreme Court).   

7.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  We have perused the letter of intent which is Annexure-C1/Annexure-R5, wherein the para No.9 & 10 are relevant.  Para No.10 is mentioned as under:-

        “10.   Regular letter of allotment will be issued to you only after obtaining the completion certificate for the allotted site and discontinued the old trade or business from the old site, failing which the new allotted site alongwith all structure raised there on by the allottee shall automatically revert to HUDA”.

8.             During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention towards Annexure-R7 & Annexure-R6.  As per letter of intent Annexure-R5, the complainant had to pay the amount of Rs.5,88,741/- with the OPs.  Annexure-R6 is the show cause notice vide which the complainant was asked to remit the amount of Rs.4,21,920.50 upto 20.02.2018.  As per Annexure-R8 which is also show cause notice dt. 04.12.2018 issued by the Ops to the complainant, wherein it is mentioned as under:-

                “As per para No.9 of letter of intent, offer of intent shall be valid for a period of 17 months from the date of offer of possession, building plan approved within 3 months of offer of possession and will have to complete the construction within 12 months from the date of sanction of building plan.  After completion of construction, a period of 2 months will be given to vacate the old premises and to shift the new premises.  As per offer of possession letter issued in July, 2016, the aforesaid period was ended in December, 2017 but you had not complete the necessary work.  Hence, this show cause notice is issued to you to reply within 15 days, otherwise, your booth will be cancelled”.

9.             Ld. counsel for the OPs has also drawn our attention towards the Annexure-R1 and Annexure-R3.  As per letter dt. 22.01.2016 written by S.D.O., HUDA Department to XEN, HUDA Department, Karnal, Annexure-R1, it was intimated that all the Civil Works, basic amenities like water supply, sewerage, road, parking & pavements in front of all the commercial sites (except Repair/Spare parts Booth without basement No.16 to 35) in Transport Nagar in Sector-25, U/E, Kaithal has been completed in all respect.  As per letter dt. 30.06.2016 written by XEN, HUDA, Elect. Division, Panchkula to Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal Annexure-R3, it was intimated that the electrification work in front of commercial sites have been completed.  Ld. counsel for the OP placed on file photographs which is Mark-A and copy of terms and conditions for E-auction of Booths/Kiosks , which is Mark-B on the file, the relevant clause H-Possession sub clause 19 is mentioned that “The possession of the plot/building may be taken immediately after making payment of 40% amount of total bid amount as the development works (basic amenities) within the area are already complete.  Development works for this purpose shall men provision of basic amenities i.e. road upto WBM level, water, electricity and sewerage”.   

10.              It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, the local commissioner was appointed by this Commission vide order dt. 26.02.2020 on the request of complainant.  The local commissioner submitted his report in this Commission on 18.03.2020.  Both the parties submitted their objections on the report of local commissioner.  We have perused the local commissioner report wherein it is mentioned that “There are electricity poles and wires of electricity in the whole area and shopkeepers also have taken electricity connections from the standing electricity poles.  The electricity supply is in running position in the whole area.  The sewerage pipes were found well installed in the whole area except very small portion of the area.  The water supply pipes were also found installed in the whole area, but the persons present there told that the water quality is not good.  The street lights were found installed in the whole area.”  Ld. counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the judgment titled as HUDA Vs. Ramesh Lal bearing first appeal No.29 of 2007 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana decided on 10.09.2007.

11.            So, in view of aforesaid documentary evidence placed on file by the OPs as-well-as report of local commissioner, it is clear that all the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, road, parking & pavements in front of all the commercial sites were completed by the Ops.  It is clear from the show cause notice i.e. Annexure-R8 that a period of 2 months was given to vacate the old premises and to shift the new premises.  As per offer of possession letter issued in July, 2016, the aforesaid period was ended in December, 2017 but the complainant did not complete the necessary work.  Hence, as per this show cause notice, the booth provided to him was to be cancelled.  So, to avoid the cancellation of booth, the complainant has filed the present complaint in this commission.  So far as regarding deficiency in service on the part of OPs is concerned, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The authority submitted by ld. counsel for the OPs is fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.    

12.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:28.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.