BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.225/16.
Date of instt.: 21.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 18.07.2017.
Sanjay Gupta S/o late Sh. Ram Kishan Gupta, r/o H.No.771/11, Gobind Colony, Kaithal.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal. ……..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 : Complainant in person.
Sh. Joginder Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is re-allottee of residential plot No.1542 of area measuring 10 marla situated in Sector-21, Urban Estate, Kaithal vide memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL/0000000390 dt. 28.03.2014. It is alleged that as per the term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter i.e. 25.05.2011 after completion of development work in the area but the Ops failed to comply with the condition No.7 of the allotment letter. It is further alleged that the possession was offered by the Ops vide letter dt. 28.12.2014 to the complainant without completing development works at site i.e. basic amenities, road, street light, electricity lines, sewerage, water supply, community hall, parks, schools, health-centre and police station in the area of plot of complainant. 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; jurisdiction; that the complainant is re-allottee of plot in question and hence, she does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that all the basic amenities like roads, sewerage/drainage, water supply and electricity supply have already been completed. In this regard, in reference to office endorsement No.870 dt. 14.01.2014, 12103 dt. 02.06.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal, the report regarding the completion of development works vide endorsement No.1739 dt. 30.06.2014 has been issued by Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division Kaithal to Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal regarding all 946 plots including the plot re-allotted to the complainant. 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 complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and Mark-C1 and closed evidence on 05.04.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed evidence on 22.05.2017.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. The complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. The complainant argued that he is re-allottee of plot No.1542 of area measuring 10 marla situated in Sector-21, Urban Estate, Kaithal vide memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL /0000000390 dt. 28.03.2014. He further argued that originally, the plot in question was allotted to Sh. Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Tara Chand vide letter dt. 25.05.2011, Ex.C2 and then the same was re-allotted to the father of complainant namely Ram Kishan vide re-allotment letter dt. 09.01.2012 and thereafter, the same was re-allotted to the complainant vide re-allotment letter dt. 28.03.2014, Ex.C4. He further argued that as per the term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter i.e. 25.05.2011 after completion of development work in the area but the Ops failed to comply with the condition No.7 of the allotment letter. He further argued that the possession was offered by the Ops vide letter dt. 28.12.2014 to the complainant without completing development works at site i.e. basic amenities, road, street light, electricity lines, sewerage, water supply, community hall, parks, schools, health-centre and police station in the area of plot of complainant. He further argued that on the application of the complainant, a local commissioner was appointed by this Forum on 22.12.2016, who submitted his report dt. 15.03.2017 in this Forum. The complainant submitted authority on the point that re-allottee is a consumer and the same is titled as Haryana Urban Devt. Auth. Vs. Shushila Devi Sharma, 2011(4) CPJ page 3 (SC). On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the Ops have offered the possession of the plot after the completion of basic amenities i.e. habilitation/dwelling like electricity, sewerage, drinking water, rainy water drainage, roads lane and street light etc. Ld. Counsel for the Ops have also relied upon the authority cited in 2011(2) Apex Court Judgments page 418 (SC) titled as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & others Vs. Raj Pal; 2000(2) PLJ page 244 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) titled as Smt. Kanta Devi Vs. State of Haryana etc.; 2009(1) CPC page 727 (SC) titled as HUDA Vs. Raje Ram; 2009 AIR page 84 (Andhra Pradesh) titled as M/s. Sivashakthi Builders & another Vs. A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and copy of order dt. 10.03.2017 passed by Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in case titled as HUDA Vs. Shish Pal & another bearing first appeal No.622 of 2016.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the plot in question was originally allotted to Naresh Kumar vide allotment letter dt. 25.05.2011, Ex.C2 and then the same was re-allotted to the father of complainant namely Ram Kishan vide re-allotment letter dt. 09.01.2012, Ex.C3 and thereafter, the thereafter, the plot in question was re-allotted to the complainant vide re-allotment letter dt. 28.03.2014, Ex.C4 after acceptance of terms and conditions of allotment letter dt. 25.05.2011. It is admitted case of the parties that the possession of the plot has been offered by the Ops on 28.12.2014. But the allegation of complainant is that the Ops have offered the possession without completing the basic amenities. To prove the fact that the basic amenities have been provided, the Ops have placed on file affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. It is clear from the documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 that the basic amenities like water supply, sewerage, roads and electrification works have been completed in the vicinity of plot of the complainant. The complainant has not placed on the file any document or report except his affidavit by which it could be proved that the basic amenities have not been provided by the Ops before the offer of possession. So, the contention of Ops that the basic amenities of water supply, sewerage, drainage, roads, electricity and street light etc. have been provided have force. The report of local commissioner is not much helpful to the complainant as the Ops have produced the documentary evidence that the basic amenities have been provided in the vicinity of complainant. Thus, in view of these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the necessary basic amenities have been provided by the Ops in the vicinity of plot of the complainant before the offer of possession to the complainant. The contention of Ops that re-allottee is not consumer of Ops has no force because the authority titled as HUDA Vs. Sushila Devi (supra) submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is later than the authority titled as HUDA Vs. Raje Ram (supra) submitted by the Ops. The authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of present case. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant is consumer of Ops.
7. Now coming on the contention of complainant that the possession was not offered within the period of three years from the date of allotment i.e. 25.05.2011 as per term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter and we found force in this contention of complainant. It is admitted by the Ops that the possession was offered on 28.12.2014. So, the possession was offered after the period of three years. The condition No.7 runs as under:-
“7. The possession of the plot will be offered within a period of 3 years from the date of allotment after completion of development work in the area. In case possession of the plot is not offered within the prescribed period of 3 years from the date of allotment, HUDA will pay interest @ 9% (or as may be fixed by Authority from time to time) on the amount deposited by you after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession and you will not be required to pay the further instalments. The payment of the balance instalments will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to you”.
In the present case, the possession of plot in question was offered on 28.12.2014 to the complainant, whereas the same should have been offered within three years as the plot was allotted on 25.05.2011. Therefore, the possession was not offered within the period of 3 years as mentioned in the condition No.7 of allotment letter. In view of this condition, we are of the considered view that the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 9% after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession on the amount deposited by the complainant upto 25.05.2014. As the Ops have not complied with the condition No.7 of allotment letter, as mentioned above, hence, they are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to pay interest @ 9% from 25.05.2014 to 28.12.2014 to the complainant on the amount deposited regarding the plot in question upto 25.05.2014 and further not to claim any interest on the remaining instalments for the period from 25.05.2014 to 28.12.2014. However, the Ops are at liberty to claim charges including interest and extension fees as per their rules and regulations except the period w.e.f. 25.05.2014 to 28.12.2014. The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. 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.18.07.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
