Haryana

StateCommission

A/515/2016

SACHIN MANDLAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.SATHI

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No. 515 of 2016

                                                  Date of Institution: 06.06.2016                       Date of Decision: 15.07.2016

 

1.      Sachin Mandlay S/o Shri Ajit Singh, R/o H.No.480/20, HUDA, Kaithal.

2.      Vijay Kumar Kohli S/o Shri Ram Rattan, r/o H.No.480/20, HUDA, Kaithal.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula through its Administrator.

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

…..Respondents/opposite parties

3.      Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Anguri Lal, resident of House No.149-7, Mohalla Bajrang, Kaithal.

4.      Harish Kumar Bhukal S/o Shri Umra Singh Bhukal, near Little Flower School, Dhand Road, New Bye Pass, Kaithal.

5.      Meenu w/o Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o H.No.52, Ward No.24, Maharaja Aggarsain colony, Jind Road, Kaithal (Already deleted vide order dated 08.05.2014.).

6.      Rajish Vadhera (since deceased) son of Shri Onkar Nath Vadhera, Now represented by his L.Rs (i) Sudarshan Vadhera (mother) (ii) Saroj Rani (wife), (iii) Nipur (minor son), (iv) Ridhi (minor daughter), both the minors through their mother Smt.Saroj Rani, all residents of House No.71/11, Nehru Garden colony, Kaithal.

…..Proforma Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.R.S.Sathi, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

This appeal has been filed by complainant Nos.3 and 5 against order dated  06.05.2016 vide which their complaint was dismissed.

2.      It was alleged by them that plot No.1268 Sector 18 Urban Estate, Kaithal was allotted to complainant No.3/appellant NO.1 vide letter dated 15.07.2010 and possession was offered on 25.11.2012.  Likewise plot No.1289 of this sector was allotted to complainant No.5/appellant No.2 vide letter dated 15.07.2010 and possession was offered on 25.11.2012.  Terms and conditions in original as well as re-allotment letters were same. As per allotment letter the possession was to be delivered within three years from the allotment with entire development in the area making  it fit for human habitation. Whereas O.Ps. did not provide basic amenities such as electricity, sewerage, drinking water, rain water, drainage, roads, street lights, school and hospital etc.  Electricity poles were installed only in 60% to 70% area. Sewerage line was also not laid in major part of the sector.  On the other hand O.Ps. started claiming interest @ 12% per annum from the date of offer of possession of which they were not having any right.  The O.Ps. be directed not to claim any interest rather pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount paid by them and to exempt them from paying further installments etc. as mentioned in the complaint. 

2.      In reply it was alleged by O.Ps. that possession was offered to the present appellants on 25.11.2012 after completing all the development works.  As per letter No.5265 dated 29.08.2012  and 5262 dated 29.08.2012 issued by Executive Engineer, HUDA Electric Division Panchkula, electrification work i.e. HT/LT and P/M/S line were already installed.  Vide letter No.3064 dated 26.10.2012 HDE HUDA sub division Kaithal reported that water supply, sewerage and  roads  were  completed  alongwith  the plots possession of which was offered.  So many allottees were constructing houses and construction was in full swing.  The averments of complainants about aforesaid lapses were altogether wrong.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.05.2016.

4.      Aggrieved therefrom, complainants-appellants have filed this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that from the perusal of report of local commission dated 30.09.2014 it is clear that street light was not provided in half of the sector. At so many places roads were not assessable and under-ground water pipes were also broken. This report clearly shows that development work is not done. Learned District forum wrongly dismissed their complaint, so impugned order be set aside.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  It may be mentioned here that the appellants are not the original allottees.  Initially these plots were allotted to other persons and later on they stepped into their shoes.  It is alleged by O.Ps. that all the facilities were provided to these plots and thereafter possession was offered.  Local Commission has no-where mentioned in his report that there was no light or sewerage line etc. before these plots.  The report is about the  sector and not these plots.  When there is no evidence qua this aspect, learned District forum rightly came to conclusion that complainants failed to prove their case.  When possession was delivered to the appellants within three years and they have failed to prove the lack of amenities in front of their plots they are not entitled for any relief. The findings of learned District forum qua them are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

July 15th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.