BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 95 of 2017.

                                                Date of Institution:         24.07.2017.

                                                Date of Decision:           29.01.2019.                                      

Vikas Soni son of Mr. R. N. Soni Advocate, resident of 266, old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani.

…..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.       The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-12, Faridabad (Haryana).

2.       The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-12, Faridabad (Haryana).

3.       The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (Haryana).

4.       The Estate Officer, HUDA, Bhiwani.

…..Opposite Parties.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri R. N. Soni, Advocate, for the complainant.

                   Shri Shankar Dhopra, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

              Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he was allotted a residential plot No. 192, Sector-56A, Faridabad (Haryana) by OP No. 1, as per allotment letter dated 10.2.2016.  It is alleged that the OP No.1 demanded 15% amount i.e. Rs.2,06,550/-, as per clause No. 5 of the allotment letter within 30 days on or before 10.3.2016, vide letter No. 416 dated 1.3.2016, which was actually delivered to the complainant on 14.3.2016.  It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited the 15% amount i.e. Rs.2,06,550/- through DD No.000446A dated 6.4.2016 by registered post on 6.4.2016 to OP No. 1 and the OPs have admitted this fact, as per letter dated 29.5.2017.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 has sent letters memo No.5836 dated 10.6.2016 and 6472 dated 29.6.2016 to the complainant for the aforesaid 15% amount of Rs.2,06,550/- sent through DD on 6.4.2016, to explain the reason of delayed payment.  It is further alleged that the complainant sent his reply dated 21.6.2016 to OP No. 1 explaining the whole and factual position.  It is further alleged that after waiting much time, when the OPs have not responded the aforesaid requests, then the complainant has sent reminder 1. dated 10.10.2016, reminder 2. dated 15.12.2016 and last No. 5 dated 9.3.2017, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that aggrieved by the inaction of the OPs, the matter was referred to the C.M. Window, Haryana, Chandigarh (Chairman HUDA) as per application dated 16.3.2017.  It is further alleged that surprisingly, the OP No. 1 replied vide letter No.A-56A/5630 dated 3.4.2017 that PPM has been updated on 1.3.2016 and to pay the payments of all due.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 has returned the DD No.974999 dated 6.4.2016 for Rs.2,06,550/- on dated 4.7.2017, even after remaining almost one year, stating that now payments are received through RTGS/ Online.  It is further alleged that it is absolutely wrong to say that payment through DD is not acceptable, as it is a hard cash and can be encashed any time.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 sent a memo No.7819 dated 29.5.2017 to the complainant and clearly admitted that the allotment letter dated 10.2.2016 was dispatched on 1.3.2016 was received by the allottee on 11.3.2016 (actually received on 14.3.2016).  It is further alleged that the date of allotment has been lateron changed as 1.3.2016 instead of 10.2.2016 by the OP No.1.  It is further alleged that the file moved from one table to another table to condone the 41 days delay and ultimately condoned the alleged delay of 41 days on 21.4.2017.  It is further alleged that the complainant again tried to deposit a sum of Rs.2,06,550/- through e-banking system, but the payment could not be deposited due to the negligence of the OPs i.e. non updating account of plot in question.  It is further alleged that the complainant personally visited the office of OP No. 3 on 14.3.2017 at Panchkula, who disclosed that the account has not been updated and the plot has been cancelled due to non-payment within time.  It is further alleged that the OPs have rectified their mistake on 27.3.2017 vide letter No.A-56A/7819 dated 29.5.2017.  It is further alleged that only then complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,06,550/- with the OP No. 1 and suffered unnecessary loss of Rs.600/- for preparation of DD, again Rs.230/- cancellation charges of D.D. and Rs.30/- RTGS charges, without his fault and due to negligence of the OPs.  It is further alleged that now after depositing the aforesaid amount, the OP No. 1 has now again shown a sum of Rs.34,462/- as delayed payment interest on installment and Rs.1839/- delayed interest of installment on the aforesaid plot of the complainant, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified, as the OPs are fully responsible for their own negligence and omissions.  It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 11.4.2017 upon the OPs for the aforesaid grievance, but the OPs are adamant and not serious to resolve the genuine grievance.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, OPs appeared and filed the contested written statement denying the allegations of complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant was allotted a plot No.192, Sector-56A, Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 10.2.2016, dispatched on 1.3.2016, which was received by the complainant on 14.3.2016.  It is further alleged that the date of the allotment was changed to 1.3.2016 in place of 10.2.2016 considering factual position, however, term & conditions of the allotment remain unaltered.    It is further alleged that as per condition No. 5 of the allotment letter, 15% of the total cost of the plot is required to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter, which comes to 30.3.2016, but the amount was deposited on 10.4.2016 by way of demand draft, which 10 days late with total delay of 41 days, which required to be condoned by the competent authority.  It is further alleged that accordingly complainant moved the application for condonation of delay vide application No.2 dated 11.5.2016, thereafter complainant was issued letters No.5836 dated 10.6.2016 and 6472 dated 28.6.2016 to intimate the reason of delayed payment, so that approval for condonation of delay may be accorded from the competent authority and ultimately application was approved with effect from 21.4.2016 and thereafter the complainant was further communicated vide Memo No. A-56A/5630 dated 3.4.2017 in reference to his CM Window complaint, requesting him to make the payment of all dues as per PPM (online software) and State Bank of India DD No.974999 dated 6.4.2016 of Rs.2,06,550/- was returned as the payments are being accepted through RTGS/Online Money Transfer System and then the complainant made the payment online on 27.3.2017 and 10.4.2017.  It is further alleged that the allottee had deposited the 15% amount after delay of 41 days and due to this delay interest as per policy and penalty and delayed interest has been imposed.  It is further alleged that there is no policy of HUDA to pay interest on the deposited DD, which has been returned to the allottee.  It is further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable, as the jurisdiction of the Forum is barred in view of the Section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977, when the complainant is at liberty to approach the appellate authority as per HUDA Act in order to exhaust the alternate remedy available under HUDA Act.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in support of his case placed on record affidavit and so many other documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence.    

4.                On the other hand ld. counsel for the OPs in support of their case placed on record affidavit of EO as Ex.RW1/A and annexure R1 to R3 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties at length and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves to be accepted, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The Plea taken by the OPs is that the Jurisdiction of this Forum is barred in view of the Section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977 is not tenable, because the HUDA Act cannot barred the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The second plea taken by the OPs is that the complainant has deposited the 15% amount after the delay of 41 days is also not tenable, because the OPs have admitted in Annexure C6 that the allotment letter was dispatched late to the complainant and due to which the date of allotment lateron changed as 1.3.2016 instead of 10.2.2016.  The OPs have miserably failed to produce any convincing & cogent evidence to disprove the stand taken by complainant that he has been harassed by the OPs for getting depositing the 15% amount of the plot.  On the other hand, the complainant has fully proved his case by placing on record copy of several documents such as allotment letter annexure C-1, application dated 6.4.2016 for depositing 15% amount through DD and copy of letter annexure C6 in which OPs have admitted their mistake i.e. delay in dispatching the allotment letter to the complainant. The complainant has also proved on record that through Annexure 5 that the OPs have returned his DD of 15% amount after keeping the same with them for about one year.  The OPs have also admitted in their written statement that there was a delay of 10 days and total delay 41 days in depositing the 15% amount by the complainant and the same was condoned by the OPs only after filing complaint by the complainant on the CM Window, Haryana.  So, from the perusal of the material available on the file, it is clearly proved that OPs have forced the complainant to run from pillar to post for depositing the 15% amount of tentative price of the plot in question, which amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  It is also proved on record that the OPs have resolve the matter, only after making serious efforts by the complainant such as moving application on CM Window, Haryana.  It is also proved on record that the complainant has deposited the 15% amount of tentative price of the plot in question immediately i.e. on 6.4.2016 through registered post, after receipt of allotment letter dated 10.2.2016, admittedly dispatched on 1.3.2016 by the OPs and received to the complainant on 14.3.2016.

7.                From the above discussion, it is clearly proved that there is great deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs waiving off the delayed payment interest, penalty i.e. Rs.34,462/- and delayed interest i.e. Rs.1839/- being illegal.  The OPs are further directed: -

i.        Not to charge any extension fee, penalty, interest & surcharge from the complainant on the amount of installments and returned the same, if any deposited, together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment.

iii.      To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges. 

                    The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 29.1.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

29.01.2019.         

      (Renu Chaudhary)   (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

      Member.                   Member.                         President,

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                       Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.