Haryana

Kurukshetra

227/2016

Sangeeta - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Kumar

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.227/16.

Date of instt.9.8.16. 

                                               Date of Decision: 17.1.18.

 

Sangeeta Goyal wife of Sanjay Goel, resident of Hojuse No.741, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

                                                            

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra, through Estate Officer.

 

 

..………Opposite party.

 

 Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                  

 

Before       Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member

Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member.

                       

Present          Sh. Ashiwani Goel, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikarant Kundu, Advocate for the OP.

                    

                                        

ORDER

                                                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sangeeta Goyal against Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate Officer, the opposite party.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is owner of booth No.155 and 156, Sector-13, as per re-allotment letter No.5693 dated 20.4.2007 and letter No.5694 dated 20.4.2007. The complainant approached the OP for issuance of possession certificate of the above said booth, which was issued by the OP vide letter No.476 dated 11.1.2008 and letter No.819 dated 15.1.2008. On 24.1.2008, the complainant approached the OP for construction over the above said booth which was also sanctioned vide letter No. EO (KKR)-06/1852 dated 29.1.2008 and letter No. EO (KKR)-06/1853 dated 29.1.2008. The complainant started construction work after completing all the formalities in this regard and all the construction work was done according to the rules and regulations and after that D.P.C. check certificate were also issued to the complainant after spot inspection by the Junior Engineer vide letter No.6966 dated 29.4.2008 and vide letter No.6967 dated 29.4.2008 and DPC found correct by the JE. HUDA. The complainant completed all the construction work on 15.7.2008 and after that the complainant applied for completion/occupation certificate of the above said booths on 29.7.2008 vide diary No.160 and 161. The officials of the OP demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for completion/occupation certificate and issued memo No. EO (KKR)/08/2373 and 2374 dated 4.2.2009. The complainant had filed complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Forum and the same were dismissed vide orders dated 21.8.2015. After that the complainant moved an application on 4.12.2015 vide diary No.8068 and 8069 to the OP with the request that the complainant wants to deposit the amount demanded by the OP vide memo No. EO (KKR)/08/2373 and 2374 dated 4.2.2009. but the OP flatly refused to accept the amount. The OP issued letter bearing Memo No.2106 dated 14.6.2016 for booth No.156/13 in which the OP mentioned to submit the report from HUDA approved architect in form BR-V. The OP also sent a message regarding booth No.156/13 on mobile phone of complainant for issuance of occupation certificate has been rejected. The complainant requested the OP many a times for taking the amount of penalty as the OP already imposed the complainant and issue occupation certificate but the OP did not pay any heed. Thus, 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 accept the payment of Rs.72,393/- with extension fee of Rs.700/- as per memo No. EO (KKR)/08/2373 dated 4.2.2009 and to receive the payment of Rs.72,393/- with extension fee of Rs.2090/- as per Memo No. EO (KKR)/08/2374 dated 4.2.2009 and to issue the occupation certificate of Booths No.155 and 156, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant had already filed the complaint No.142/2009 which was dismissed on 21.8.2015 and as such the present complaint is barred under order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. ; that both in question is commercial and therefore, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. The true facts are that there is Dhaba on the booth No.155 and 156 , Kurukshetra, whereas as per rules and regulations and policy of HUDA, no Dhaba can be run on the said booths. The complainant in utter violation of her own sanctioned the site plan and in violation of HUDA building bye-laws had illegally raised construction on the basement in which corridor, which is public way while the complainant had submitted the site plan for raising the construction of basement only in the booths as specifically shown in the site plan. The complainant has not obtained the permission for clubbing the booth No.155 and 156, Sector-13, Kurukshetra from the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and has illegally and forcibly clubbed the said booths and therefore, the said construction which is illegal and unauthorized is liable to be demolished and removed from the spot; that the answering OP issued the letter vide Memo No.2106 dated 14.6.2016 for booth No.156/13 and in which the answering OP has mentioned to submit the report from HUDA approved architect in form BR-V but the complainant intentionally and knowingly with ulterior motive has not submitted the said form to the HUDA till now. So, the answering OP is duty bound to resume the said booths. Moreover, the complainant has not filed appeal/representation against the said memos before the competent authority of HUDA, so the same have become absolute and final. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op 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.             Both the parties have filed their evidence to prove their respective version.

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

6.            It is to be noted that previously the Booths in question were decided by this Forum vide order dated 21.8.2015 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant without getting the said order dated 21.8.2015 set aside. Moreover, as per Ex.R1 the complainant was asked to report from HUDA approved Architect in Form BR-V which she has failed to submit the same. The same was required by the complainant vide Ex.A-11. So, in these circumstances, there is no merit in the present complaint.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is without any merit and as such the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.

Announced:             

Dt. 17.1.2018.                                     (G.C.Garg)

                                                         President,

                                                District Consumer Disputes                                                           Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)       (Viraj Pahil)        

 Member                                 Member