BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.3/14.

Date of instt.: 02.01.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 25.04.2016.

1. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Gian Chand s/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, r/o 417/5, Mohalla Khushal Majri, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

2. Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o late Sh. Gian Chand S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, r/o H.No.1250, Sector-15, HUDA, Faridabad.

3. Smt. Asha Rani D/o Sh. Gian Chand, resident of House No.229, Tharmal Colony, Aasan, Panipat.   

                                                        ……….Complainants.    

                                        Versus

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

2. Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.

3. Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Dinesh Pathak, Advocate for complainants.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the father of complainants namely Sh. Gian Chand was allotted plot No.316 in Sector 19-I, HUDA, Kaithal vide allotment letter dt. 01.02.1986.  It is alleged that the formal possession of above-said plot was given on 24.03.1992.  It is further alleged that the adjoining owners of plots No.317 to 320 intended to raise construction over their plots without proper demarcation in the year 1996 and they intended to encroach upon the plot in dispute, so, the father of complainants was compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction against those owners and Op No.1, which was dismissed upto the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in which the Op No.1 was directed to conduct fresh demarcation of the plot in question and to refund the amount of lesser area of the plot along with interest to father of complainants.  It is further alleged that in view of the judgments of courts, the Ops handed over the actual possession of the plot of corrected area vide possession certificate dt. 27.12.2006.  It is further alleged that after getting the possession, the father of complainants got sanctioned the site-plan from Op No.1 vide letter dt. 12.03.2007.  It is further alleged that the father of complainants i.e. original allottee started construction in the middle of year 2007 and on completion of structure submitted file for completion/occupation certificate, but after submission of file, the father of complainants became serious ill and he remained ill as such for a long time and ultimately, he expired on 31.07.2012.  It is further alleged that the complainant No.1 could apply for re-allotment/transfer of the plot in his name in October/November, 2013 with the Ops but the Op No.1 refused to do the needful and the complainant was surprised to know that an amount of about Rs.16,68,415/- is outstanding against the plot on account of extension fee since the year 2007.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that a plot No.316 in Sector 19(1) HUDA, Kaithal was allotted in the name of Sh. Gian Chand vide allotment letter dt. 01.02.1986.  As per terms and conditions of above-said allotment letter, the allottee had to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession, after getting the plan of the proposed building approved from the competent authority.  The possession of above-said plot was given to the above-said allottee Sh. Gian Chand vide letter memo No.7454 dt. 24.03.1992.  As the above-said Sh. Gian Chand did not construct the building within the stipulated period, so, extension fee of amounting to Rs.15,87,927/- are due upto date.  As the complainant has not completed the requisite formalities of HUDA for transfer of the above-said plot in his favour nor deposited the defaulting amount of Rs.15,87,927/-, so, they are not entitled to any relief.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence on 11.11.2014.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and document Ex.R2 and closed evidence on 17.12.2014.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     On appraisal of pleadings, evidence and rival contentions of both the parties, it is not disputed that the father of complainants namely Sh. Gian Chand (since deceased) was allotted plot No.316 in Sector 19-1, HUDA, Kaithal vide allotment letter dt. 01.02.1986.  There is also no dispute that the father of complainants Sh. Gian Chand died on 31.07.2012.  The dispute between the parties is with regard to extension fee of Rs.16,68,415/- levied by the Ops upon the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the said amount of Rs.16,68,415/- shown as extension fees is wrong and illegal.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the extension fees are charged as per rules and regulations of HUDA Department.  He further argued that as offer of possession of plot No.316, Sector 19-I, HUDA was given to Sh. Gian Chand on 24.03.1992, so, as per rules and regulations of HUDA, he was under obligation to complete the construction within two years i.e. upto 24.03.1994 and 15 years of extension got completed on 31.03.2007, so, the extension fee of Rs.16,68,415/- is legal and rightly charged upon the above-said plot.  He further argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority reported as PUDA Vs. Varinder Singh Lamba, 2016(2) CLT page 154 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that the Consumer Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to extension fee.  In this authority, the Hon’ble National Commission has also relied upon the judgment of HUDA Vs. Sunita cited in 2005(2) SCC page 479, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Consumer courts are not empowered to decide the issue of extension fees levied by the Development Authorities.      The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of present case.

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of extension fees levied by the Ops.  Hence, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.25.04.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.