Haryana

Kurukshetra

186/2016

Pankaj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

KAranvir Singh

17 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.186 of 2016.

Date of instt:11.07.2016. 

                                                                              Date of Decision: 17.10.2018.

Dr. Pankaj Singh son of Dr. Hoshiar Singh, resident of D-151, University Campus, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, Dostrict Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

                                                            

1.Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra, through its Estate Officer,.

2.Chief Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.

 

                                ..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

                       

Present:     Sh. Karan Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                 Sh. Vikarant Kundu, Advocate for the Ops.

                    

ORDER     

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Pankaj Singh against Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra, through its Estate Officer and another, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had wrote a letter in the year, 2003 for taking the possession of plot No.25-A, Sector-30, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. A letter bearing No.665 dated 21.5.2003 was written by the office of Ops to report about the actual condition of the site of the plot mentioned above.  The S.D.E. vide endorsement bearing No.1075 dated 8.7.2003 had reported that it is difficult to lay the sewerage line and to construct the road due to the existence of a nala and some quarters of the Indian Military and due to this reason the possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant. The complainant had approached the Ops many a times and tried to know about the real facts and complainant also gave a written application on 21.9.2010 for supply of information but the Ops gave a letter dated 1.12.2012 and informed that the site is clear. As per condition of the allotment letter dated 30.5.2002 the interest on the installment was to be charged after offering the possession, but no possession has been delivered to the complainant.  Now the complainant has received two letters dated 27.9.2012 and 5.10.2012 in which an illegal amount of Rs.2,44,425/- has been shown as interest up to 27.9.2012. The said letters are illegal and the alleged amount is also illegal as no possession has been delivered to the complainant till today, so no interest can be charged on the installments.  After receipt of said letters, the complainant approached the Ops and make applications not to charge any alleged amount but the Ops refused to hear the request of complainant and threatened to resume the plot in case the amount is not deposited. Earlier, the complainant has filed a complaint against the Ops on 1.2.2013 but the same has been dismissed-in-default on 5.11.2015 and after that the complainant has filed an application for restoration of the complaint on 1.12.2015 but the same has been dismissed as withdraw on the ground of maintainability.  Hence, the present fresh complaint has been filed by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to withdraw the letters dated 27.9.2012 and 5.10.2012, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant earlier filed a complaint which was dismissed in default on 5.11.2015, so the only remedy with the complainant is to file appeal against the said order before the appellate court.  In fact the plot No.25-A, Sector-30, measuring 14 Marla was allotted to Anu Jain vide allotment letter No.6956 dated 30.5.2002 at a tentative price of Rs.3,49,830/- and as per clause No.7 (ii) of the allotment letter, the possession was offered to the allottee Anu Jain on 30.5.2002 itself. Thereafter, an application for transfer of the above said plot was moved by the allottee Anu Jain in favour of complainant and Vikram Singh on 6.9.2002 and accordingly the provisional transfer was made in favour of complainant and Vikram Singh vide letter No.11755 dated 10.9.2002. An affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate, Kurukshetra was shown by the complainant and Vikram Singh on 10.9.2002 regarding the acceptance of terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Re-allotment letter was issued to the complainant and Vikaram Singh vide Memo No.11974 dated 16.9.2002 and in the said letter payment schedule was duly mentioned. The complainant failed to deposit the payment as per schedule. The receipts regarding the amount deposited by the complainant were issued to the complainant. The complainant made a representation and the spot was inspected by the official of concerned branch and no encroachment has been found on the spot and the plot was found clear for raising the construction. No military quarters were found on the spot. Various houses in the surrounding area are being constructed. The allottee of plot No.23 adjoining to the complainant had also constructed the residential house after getting the site plan sanctioned from the answering OP and occupation certificate was also issued to the said allottee vide letter dated 30.10.2008. The representation dated 21.9.2010 was duly replied by the answering OP. As per the audit report a sum of Rs.3,90,063/- up to 29.7.2016 are outstanding against the complainant and the answering OP issued a show cause notice to the complainant but the complainant has failed to comply with the same. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             The complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dt. 01.12.2010 as Annexure C1, copy of letter dt. 21.09.2010 as Annexure C2, copy of reply of letter dt. 03.11.2012 as Annexure C3, copy of letter dt. 20.05.2003 as Annexure C4, copy of letter dt. 30.07.2003 as Annexure C5, copy of site plan as Annexure C6, cpy of notice dt. 27.09.2012 as Annexure C7, copy of order dt. 05.11.2015 as Annexure C8 and copy of order dt. 27.01.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court as Annexure C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Yogesh Ranga, Estate Officer, HUDA as Ex.RW1/A, copy of allotment letter dt. 30.05.2002 as Ex.R1, copy of affidavit as Ex.R2, copy of letter dt. 25.11.2010 as Ex.R3, copy of order dt. 05.11.2015 as Ex.R4, copy of possession certificate as Ex.R5, copy of occupation certificate as Ex.R6 and copy of allottee account statement as Ex.R7 and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.             The counsel of complainant contended that the second complaint is maintainable because Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the case on 27.01.2016 titled as Indian Machinery Company Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. bearing Civil Appeal No.557 of 2016 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given direction that the second complaint is maintainable on the same facts.  It is also contended by the counsel of complainant that he purchased the plot No.25-A, Sector-30, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra from Ms. Anu Jain on 10.09.2002.  After purchasing, he has applied for possession from the HUDA Department in the year 2003.  On the application of possession letter, Estate Officer, HUDA wrote to the S.D.E., HUDA about the clearance of plot.  In this letter, Estate Officer has written to the S.D.E., HUDA, Sub Division No.2, Kurukshetra that whether the plot of complainant is ready for possession or not, which is Annexure C-4.  In response to this letter, S.D.E., HUDA gave the report to the Estate Officer, HUDA that “the service of sewerage line could not be constructed/laid in front of above-said plot as per proposed plan of sewerage scheme of the particular area as being of site/ground constraints of existing Nallah and existing so called military structure which were coming in the alignment of proposed sewer line and also to be connected with existing master sewer line as shown in the annexed key-plan.”  So, the possession of the plot was not given to the complainant till date.  It is also argued by the counsel of complainant that he has written a letter again in the year 2010 regarding the possession of plot No.25-A, Sector-30, Kurukshetra, copy of which Annexure C-2 is placed on the file.  The counsel of complainant further argued that till 2010, the clearance of plot was not given by the HUDA Department, so, he is not liable to pay the construction penalty, which is Annexure C7.

8.             On the other hand, the counsel of Ops contended that they have given the possession of adjoining plot bearing No.23 of Sector 30 in the year 2007, which is clear from Ex.R5 and given the completion certificate in the year 2008, which is clear from Ex.R6.  So, it is not possible that the plot in question was not clear at the time of allotment to the original allottee i.e. Anu Jain.  It is also contended that there is no construction at the time of allotment to the original allottee of plot No.25, Sector-30.  So, the complainant is liable to pay all the amount which is mentioned in Annexure C7 for non-construction of plot in question.                                       

9.             During the course of arguments, we have also called the original record of plot No.25 of Sector 30, Kurukshetra from HUDA Department.  We have perused the main file which was also shown in one paper that the complainant has written the letter for possession but the possession was not given due to non-clearance of plot.  We have also perused on the file that some papers were missing in the main file.  In view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that there is gross deficiency on the part of Ops, who have not given the possession to the complainant till date.  Hence, they are liable to withdraw the letter Annexure C7 because they have not given the clearance letter to the complainant. 

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the letter, Annexure C-7.  The Ops are further directed to give the possession letter of the plot in question to the complainant.  The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:17.10.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.