Haryana

StateCommission

A/419/2016

SHRI KRISHAN YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

B.K.BAGRI

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.419  of 2016

 Date of Institution:13.05.2016

  Date  of  Decision:04.11.2016

 

Shri Krishan yadav S/o Shri Shish Ram, R/o H.No., Nai Basti, Rewari,Tehsil and Distt.Rewari at present resident of House No.1665, Sector 4 Rewari, Distt. Rewari.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority,Rewari.
2. The Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 14, Gurgaon.
3. Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.

…..Respondents

 

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

                              Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Y.P.Rana, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

It was alleged by complainant that he was allotted plot No.30SP Sector-4 Rewari vide allotment letter dated 24.11.2003. He paid all the installments as per schedule. Vide letter dated 11.07.2014 sent by opposite party No.1 (O.P.), he was asked to take possession within 30 days and he took possession on 19.09.2014. O.Ps. asked him to deposit Rs.11,02,572/- as outstanding dues vide letter No.5626 dated 04.12.2014.  They again issued letter dated 05.01.2015 to deposit Rs.7,99,320/- within thirty days. Hence this complaint.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that possession of the plot was offered to him at the time of allotment, but, he failed to comply with the instructions and did not take possession of the plot. Amount of Rs.9,01,305/- was outstanding against him.  He did not clear all the dues and total amount of Rs.11,54,192/- was outstanding against him as on 16.03.2015. Objections about maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, estopple etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (In short “District Forum”) opined that thorough enquiry/trial was required in this case which  could be done by Civil Courts  only and on this ground the complaint was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.03.2016.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant  has preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused. 

6.      It is opined by this Commission in Revision Petition No.39 of 2016 titled as M/s Pareena Infrastructure Vs. Ms. Nell Acharya decided on 01.07.2016 that the matter can be remanded if complicated question is not decided by the Distt. Forum. In the present case no complicated question is involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by the District Forum.  More so Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J.Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi 2002 (3) CPJ 8 and  Hon’ble National Commission in Regency Aqua-Electro and Motelresorts Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 2016  (2) CLT 96 have opined that ordinarily even if evidence is to be recorded the matter should not be remitted back and the concerned fora should decide the case on merits.

7.      As a sequel to above discussion impugned order dated 29.03.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District forum to decide the case on merits.

8.      Appellant is directed to appear before the District Forum, Rewari on 15.12.2016.

 

November 04th, 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                     Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.