Haryana

StateCommission

CC/104/2014

Tara Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                                                Complaint No.104 of 2014                                                                          Date of Institution: 23.11.2015                                        Date of Decision: 01.04.2016

Tara Chand son of Maman Ram, aged 75 years resident of House No.1442 Sector 13-P (P), Hisar.

…..Complainant.

Versus

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority having controlling power under State of Haryana through Financial, Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

 2.     Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Sector 6 Panchkula.

3.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Administrator, HUDA Complex Sector 14, Gurgaon.

4.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate Officer No.2, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 56, Gurgaon.

          …..Opposite Parties

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.   

                                 

For the parties:  Mr.R.S.Badhran and Mr.A.K.Jalandhra, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr.Sikander Bakshi, proxy counsel for Mr.Rajesh Kaul, Advocate for respondents.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties (O.Ps) invited applications for allotment of freehold residential plot in Sector 57, Gurgaon. He applied for the allotment on 27.04.204 and deposited Rs.1,94,440/- as 10 % of the actual price i.e. Rs.19,40,400/-. He also deposited the remaining amount in installment as detailed below:

1. Rs.3,39,570/- on 01.07.2005
2. Rs.2,67,000/- on 24.07.2006
3. Rs.2,67,000/- on 17.07.2007
4. Rs.3,00,000/- on 27.03.2009
5. Rs.4,00,000/- on 23.11.2009
6. Rs.3,60,000/- on 27.02.2012
7. Total               Rs.21,27,610/-“

He was allotted plot No.1561-P, Sector 57, Gurgaon vide memo No.2535 dated 20.06.2005. Lateron, he came to know that the plot allotted to him was omitted during demarcation.  On 07.04.2010 he approached OP No.2 for alternative allotment. The Ops asked him to deposit escalation charges as prices have risen vide memo No. Z0002/ E0018/UE029/ DELET/ 0000001797 2680 dated 14.12.2012/14.02.2013.  They asked to deposit amount as per enhanced schedule.  He paid entire amount, but, possession was not delivered to him, so he is entitled for compensation qua mental harassment and interest etc.  As per advertisement the Ops were supposed to deliver possession within ninety days from allotment but possession was not offered for more than 10 years.  He was allotted alternative plot bearing No.38-L/P Sector 57 Part-II, Gurgaon vide memo No.1768 dated 10.02.2014 whereas the previous plot was in part I and was at a better situation. The Ops have not explained about the delay in delivery of possession.  So they be directed to pay Rs.20/- lakhs for physical and mental harassment, Rs.40 lakhs due to escalation charges and 18 % of interest on Rs.49,47,035/- deposited by him besides litigation expenses etc.

2.      Ops filed reply alleging that he was not entitled for any benefit because there is no deficiency in service on their part. He has alredy been allotted fully developed plot.  If he is not satisfied with the same he can get his amount refunded. The plot has been allotted to him on the same terms and conditions and he has not suffered any loss. Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that who has earned benefit due to appreciation of price is not entitled for any interest on the amount paid by him. An alternative plot was allotted to him as per orders of Hon’ble High Court, so he is not entitled for any benefit. The amount of compensation has been exaggerated by him just to bring this complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. He has filed his complaint beyond the period of limitation. Initial allotment was tentative subject to pay enhanced price as per clause 9 which is a under:

“9.The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the Authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of its demand. Thus the complainant is mis-leading this Hon’ble Commission by making false averments with regards to price of the alternate plot”

 

He is also having a house in Urban Estate, Hisar and not suffered any loss.

3.      Arguments heard. File has been perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that plot No.1561-P was allotted to him vide letter dated 20.06.2005. It was mentioned in clause 7 of the latter that possession will be offered on completion of development works. O.Ps. did not complete development work even after expiry of three years, so he is entitled for interest as per amended policy of HUDA Ex.C16 dated 25.01.2007. Lateron, he came to know that his plot has been omitted in demarcation. He requested O.Ps. to allot an alternative plot and ultimately an alternative plot was allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 23.06.2015.  The Ops also demanded additional amount vide letter Ex.C-18, whereas he had also deposited the entire amount. So he was entitled for the interest on the amount already deposited and costs of construction which has also increased as shown in calculation submitted by him. House No.1442 Sector 13, Hisar is owned by his son, so he be awarded interest as prayed for.

5.      This argument is devoid of any force. Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank 2007 AIR (SC) 2198   that where time was not essence of the contract and an authority is working on no profit no loss basis, allottee is not entitled for interest for delay in delivery of possession when an alternative plot has been allotted to him on that very price because he had enjoyed the benefit of escalation of the prices. In the present case the plot was allotted to the complainant vide letter dated 20.06.2005 Ex.C13. It was nowhere mentioned therein that he will be given possession within 90 days. It shows that the time was not the essence of the contract. Letter Ex.C-16 was issued in the year 2007. It is nowhere mentioned therein that it will be applicable retrospectively. The possession could not be offered to complainant because plot was not available. He was allotted another plot on that very price, though, the prices have increased by that time. In this way, he enjoyed the fruits of increase in prices. The demand raised by Ops vide letter Ex.C18 cannot be said unreasonable because this demand has been raised due to increase in compensation awarded to the land owners.

5.                Keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank 2007 AIR (SC) 2198, he is not entitled for any compensation. Resultantly, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

April Ist, 2016

Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial MemberAddl.Bench

 

N.K.