Haryana

Kurukshetra

231/2018

Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Sahab Singh

12 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                 Complaint no.231 of 1028..

                                         Date of instt. 25.10.2018. 

                                       Date of Decision:12.04.2021.

 

Prem Chand Sharma son of Munsi Ram, resident of H.No.269, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                                                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

1. Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran earlier   HUDA, Jindal Chowk, Sectpr 4, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra through its Estate Officer

 

2. Chief Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran earlier HUDA Sector 6, Panchkula.

..………Opposite parties.

 

                   Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                                            

Before                Smt. Neelam President.    

                        Smt. Neelam, Member,

                        Sh.Issam Singh Sagwal, Member,

                            

Present   :           Sh. Sahab Singh Saini , Adv. for complainant.

   Sh. Anuj Garg, Adv. for OPs.           

                                    

ORDER

                                                                                       

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Prem Chand Sharma against Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra and another - the opposite parties.

 

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is allottee of Plot No.269, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. A notice for 3rd enhancement at the rate of Rs.60.85/- was issued to the complainant, beside to the other plot holders. The Urban Estate Resident Welfare Association etc. have filed a civil suit against HUDA in the Civil Court at Kurukshetra during the year and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to order dated 3.8.2002 to the effect that the complainant as well as other allottee to pay enhanced amount at the rate of Rs.52.88/- per square meter within a period of one month from the date of order and accordingly. The said suit was finally decided on 24.12.2003 and demand notice @ Rs.60.85/- per square meter was held to be illegal, null and void and further direction to the HUDA to issue fresh notices on the basis of correct calculations. An appeal filed against the said order by the OPs was dismissed.  The complainant wanted to dispose of his house and accordingly, the complainant wanted NOC from the OP and the OP directed to pay Rs.24,031/- in lieu of the amount of 3^rd enhancement under compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.24,031/- on 24.2.2000  vide receipt No.95/217617 subject to the decision of the court  and at that time there was no dues against the complainant regarding the said plot.It is further averred that in compliance of the order dated 26.7.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.16791 of 2012 the OPs considered the entire matter and vide speaking order dated 9.2.2014 wherein it is held that:

                That the allottees who have deposited the  3^rd enhancement at the rate of Rs.52.88 per sq.meter on 3.8.2002 and Rs.4.22 per sq.meter upto Dec.2003. The date of issue of notice of balance amount of Rs.4.22   will be considered as March 2004 and the interest at the rate 15% per annum will be charged from these dates  and consequently, if any allottee had deposited the excess amount at the rate of 57.10 per sq.meter is entitled for refund with the same rate of interest i.e. 15% per annum. The complainant had already deposited Rs.24,031/- up to 29.2.2000 subject to decision of the suit which was pending at that time  and the litigation thereof. The OP was only entitled for a sum of Rs.7708.50 paisa and not beyond that and still the OP had charged Rs.24031/- from the complainant in lieu of 3^rd enhancement and as such the complainant had charged excess amount of Rs.16,322.50 paisa and the OP is bound to return the said amount which has been charged in excess from the complainant along with interest @ 15% per annum. The complainant made representation on various dates through registered post even after the speaking order of Estate Officer dated 9.2.2014 to get the said amount of Rs.16,322.50 paisa along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum till its payment along with interest @15% per annum but the same has not been refunded despite several written and verbal requests of complainant. Ultimately, the complainant was compelled to file a complaint against the OPs before this Hon’ble  Commission   for refund of Rs.16322/- alongwith interest  but the said complaint was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 24.5.2017 simply on the ground that the calculation of due amount has not been submitted by the complainant. Then the complainant filed an appeal against the order dated 24.5.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Commission  bearing No.794 of 2017   wherein the OPs took a plea  before the Hon’ble State Commission Panchkula that the complainant has not mentioned the amount due towards the OPs if any, as such the Hon’ble State Commission disposed off the appeal vide order dated 27.3.2018 by directing the  complainant to file representation before the  respondent no.1 to be decided within three months from the date of issuance of notice to the complainant. In compliance of the order dated 27.3.2018,  of the Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant submitted representation on 22.5.2018  before the OP No.1 but the OP No.1 rejected the same holding that “ no excess amount has been charged” vide order dated nill (passed in the back of the complainant) which was received by the complainant on 24.9.2018 by post.  The above said order of the OP no.1 is illegal one and as the amount of Rs.16322/- has not been refunded to the complainant, therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Op to make he payment of Rs.16,322.50 paisa along with 15% interest, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from foiling the present complaint; that the matter regarding charging of enhancement amount, extension fee is beyond the scope of consumer Forum. Even, the Ops are well entitled to charge the enhancement amount from the complainant as per rules; that the first notice concerning to 3^rd enhancement was issued @ 60.85 per sq. meters to the allottee of Sector-13, Kurukshetra w.e.f. 15.12.1991 and the allottee and residents welfare association had filed a case before the Arbitrator and there the rate were reduced to Rs.57.10 per square meter vide order dated 2.12.1994. Thereafter, the civil court had ordered on 3.2.2008 that the rate of enhancement to be deposited at least @ 52.88 per square meter. No excess amount has ever been charged and as such no question of any refund arises at all. 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 proved on record his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, the OP proved on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents  Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and thereafter closed the evidence.

 

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

 

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was allotted plot No. 269, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra vide allotment letter, Ex.C2.  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.24031- to the Ops and the civil court has declared that demand notice @ 60.85 per square meter is 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 NOC  in the HUDA department to dispose off his said plot/house.  The HUDA department refused to give the  NOC without deposit the amount of Rs.24031/- in lieu of 3^rd enhancement of that area.  The complainant was in need of NOC.  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.7708/- 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.24031/- plus Rs.708.56 paise as an interest  and hence, Rs.7708/- only was recoverable from the complainant.  Thus, the HUDA department has taken excess payment of Rs.16322/- (Rs.24031/-minus Rs.7708-).  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 further argued that as per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission,  if the complainant was not satisfied by the order of the  EO, HUDA, then the complainant was supposed to file appeal before the Higher Authorities of the HUDA and this commission is not competent authority to file the present complaint before this Commission. It is argued that as the complainant has not preferred appeal against the order of EO, HUDA before the Higher Authorities of HUDA, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is admitted by the HUDA department that the amount of Rs.24031/- has been deposited by the complainant.

 

9.             So far as maintainability of the present complaint before this Commission is concerned, the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 27.03.2018 (Ex.C-15)  had disposed off the appeal filed by the complainant giving directions  to dispose of the representation after giving an opportunity  to plead his case before the HUDA. Accordingly, the complainant filed representation before the HUDA which was decided vide

Speaking order Ex.C-7. As the representation of the complainant was declined by the HUDA, therefore, new cause of action accrued to the complainant and the complainant was at liberty to file new case  either before the Civil Court or this Commission and as such the present complaint before this Commission is well maintainable.

 

10.            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.

                               

11.            In this case the complainant had deposited Rs.24031/- with the OPs on 24.02.2000 whereas the OPs were entitled to recover the amount of Rs.7708.50P  only as charges for third enhancement for the land.  Thus, the OPs have  received  Rs.16322.50P in excess from the complainant which is liable to be refunded by the OPs. As per letter issued by Chief Administrator to the Estate Officer, HUDA ( Ex.C-29) OPs are liable to get interest @ 15% on the recoveries from the allottees and in the said letter, it is also mentioned that simultaneously HUDA is liable to pay the interest @ 15%  w.e.f. excess amount deposited  by the allottee. Accordingly, in view of the own document of OPs, the complainant is entitled to interest @ 15% on the amount of Rs.16322.50P from the date of deposit i.e. 24.02.2000 till its actual realization.

 

12.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.16322/- to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 24.02.2000 till its actual realization 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 at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  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.:12.04.2021 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),                          (Neelam)        

      Member                                       Member.