Haryana

StateCommission

A/680/2015

SANJEEV GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

PARUL MITTAL

21 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      680 Of 2015

Date of Institution:       19.08.2015

Date of Decision :        21.10.2015

 

Sanjeev Goyal s/o Sh. Tarlochan Lal, Resident of H.No.1070, Sector-15, Panchkula.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA Office Complex, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Parul Mittal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for respondent.  

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated April 10^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short District Forum) whereby complaint was dismissed.    

2.      Archana Pasi w/o Sh. Ramesh Chandra, was allotted plot No.586-P, measuring 438 Square Yards located in Sector-27, Panchkula, for a tentative price of Rs.31,69,280/-, vide allotment letter dated November 3^rd, 2006 (Annexure R-1). The possession of the plot was offered vide memo No.997 dated 03.11.2006. Thereafter, the plot was transferred in favour of Mr. Sudhir Verma and Mrs.Madhuri Verma vide re-allotment letter No.5623 dated 02.06.2008 (Annexure C-5). They took possession on 22.01.2009. Then the plot was transferred in favour of Bimla Goyal and Sanjeev Goyal vide re-allotment letter bearing memo No.3428 dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure C-1).  Finding the plot of uneven level, the complainants moved applications Annexure C-2 and C-3 to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula requesting to provide filling sand in the plot which they refused. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The opposite parties-HUDA contested complaint by filing reply. They denied any kind of deficiency in service on their part in view of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The question for determination before this Commission is as to whether the HUDA is liable for payment to level the uneven plot?

5.      The answer to the question is in negative in view of condition No.11 of the allotment letter (Annexure R-3) reproduced as under:-

“11.   The Authority will not be responsible for leveling the uneven sites”.

6.      Clause 11 of the allotment letter mentioned above, makes it clear that the HUDA is not responsible for leveling the uneven plot. Even otherwise, the complainant is the re-allottee of the plot. The possession of the plot was already delivered to the seller (previous owner) of the plot and therefore the complainant could have purchased the plot with open eyes. Thus no deficiency in service can be attributed to the HUDA.

7.      In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on the ground other than recorded by the District Forum.

 

Announced 21.10l.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL