Haryana

Kurukshetra

163/2016

PAwan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

26 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.163 of 2016.

                                                     Date of institution: 08.06.2016.

                                                     Date of decision: 26.11.2018.

Pawan Kumar Jindal son of Sh. Budh Dev, R/o H.No.1439, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The HUDA through its Estate Officer, Kurukshetra.
2. Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.
3. Chief Controller of Finance, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Shekhar Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikrant Kundu, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Pawan Kumar against HUDA and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is allottee of plot No.1439, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.  It is alleged that a notice for 3^rd enhancement at the rate of Rs.60.85 paise was issued to the residents of Sector-13 during December, 2011.  The Urban Estate Resident Association etc. filed a civil suit against the HUDA in the Civil Court at Kurukshetra during the year 1992 and the Civil Court was pleased to order on 03.08.2012 to the relief that the complainant as well as others to pay enhanced amount at the rate of Rs.52.88/- per square meter within a period of one month and accordingly, payment of Rs.7140/- was made on 28.08.2002 by due date.  The said suit was finally decided n 24.12.2003 and demand notices @ Rs.60.85/- per square meter held to be illegal, null and void and further directed the HUDA to issue fresh notices on the basis of correct calculations.  It is further alleged that the HUDA issued fresh notices to only 226 plot holders in the month of March, 2004 with the direction to deposit the difference at the rate of Rs.4.22/- per square meter within a period of 30 days from the date of notice and no such notice was served to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant applied for NOC to Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra and the Ops directed the complainant to deposit Rs.29,110/- in lieu of amount of 3^rd enhancement and the payment was made under compelling circumstances on 13.08.2012 while nothing was due against the complainant.  The complainant had already deposited the amount of 3^rd enhancement at the rate of Rs.52.88/- per square meter (Rs.7140/- on 28.08.2002) as per interim orders of Hon’ble Court within due date and the complainant was thus liable for balance payment at the rate of Rs.4.22/- per square meter from 01.04.2004 to 13.08.2012 that comes out to be Rs.569.70 paise plus Rs.708.56 paise as an interest and hence, an amount of Rs.1278/- only was recoverable from the complainant as per the speaking order No.1642 dt. 09.02.2014 of Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the excess payment taken Rs.27,832/- alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is hopelessly time-barred because the complainant has claimed the relief with effect from 13.08.2012, whereas the complaint is dt. 03.06.2016 and so, the present complaint has been filed after about 4 years; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of his case, the counsel of complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.             On the other hand, the counsel of Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops 

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was allotted plot No. 1439, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra vide allotment letter, Ex.C1.  He contended that the Ops have demanded 3^rd enhancement @ Rs.60.85 per square meter in the year 1991.  The Urban Estate Resident Welfare Association etc. had filed a civil suit against HUDA in Civil Court, Kurukshetra in which the Civil Court has directed to deposit the amount of Rs.52.88 per square meter as interim relief.  After this order of civil court, the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.7140/- to the Ops and the civil court has declared that demand notice @ 60.85 per square meter as illegal, null and void and further directed the HUDA to issue fresh notices.  He further contended that the HUDA issued fresh notices to only 226 plot holders in the month of March, 2004 with the direction to deposit @ Rs.4.22 paise (Rs.57.10-Rs.52.88) per square meter within a period of 30 days from the date of notice but no such notice was served to the complainant.  The counsel of complainant again contended that in the month of July, 2012 the complainant has applied for conveyance deed in the HUDA department.  The HUDA department refused to give the conveyance deed without deposit the amount of Rs.29,110/- in lieu of 3^rd enhancement of that area.  The complainant was in need of conveyance deed.  He has deposited that amount to the HUDA department.  The department has taken that amount illegally from the complainant.  He further contended that the complainant had deposited amount of 3^rd enhancement at the rate of Rs.52.88 paise per square meter (Rs.7140/- on 28.08.2002) as per interim order of Hon’ble Court and the complainant was thus liable for balance payment at the rate of Rs.4.22 paise (Rs.57.10-Rs.52.88) per square meter from 01.04.2004 to 13.08.2012 that comes out to be Rs.569.70 plus Rs.708.56 paise as an interest  and hence, Rs.1278/- only was recoverable from the complainant.  Thus, the HUDA department has taken excess payment of Rs.27,832/- (Rs.29,110/-minus Rs.1278/-).  The counsel of complainant contended that the excess amount may please be refunded to the complainant.  The counsel of complainant has place reliance upon the order dt. 22.08.2017 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in case titled as Ved Parkash Vs. HUDA bearing first appeal No.918 of 2016.  

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that the Hon’ble High Court has decided the case regarding the amount of 3^rd enhancement.  So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  It is admitted by the HUDA department that the amount of Rs.29,110/- has been deposited by the complainant. 

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of submissions of both the parties, we find weight in the submissions of counsel for the complainant.  There is no merit in the submissions of counsel for the Ops.  We can rely upon the authority titled as Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, bearing civil appeal No.6237 of 1990, date of decision: 05.11.1993 (SC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court “Consumer Protection-Promoting welfare of Society-Act is Social benefit oriented legislation-Removing helplessness of consumer in Society where producers have secured power-Provisions of Act should be construed in favour of consumer-Milestone in socio economic legislation history and is directed to achieve public benefit”.  So, keeping in view the ratio applied by Hon’ble Apex Court in the said authority and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.27,832/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- 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 preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  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.:26.11.2018. 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.