Haryana

StateCommission

A/1068/2014

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jitender Phor - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1068 of 2014

Date of Institution:        21.11.2014

Date of Decision :         15.07.2016

 

1.     Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.

2.     Estate officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonipat.

 

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Jitender Phor son of R.S. Phor, Resident of House No.563, Sector-14, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate proxy for Shri Rajesh Kaul, Advocate for appellants.

                             Respondent in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of Opposite Parties is directed against the order dated August 25^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.275 of 2013.

2.     Jitender Phor-complainant/respondent, was allotted Plot No.26 PP, measuring 14 Marlas, Sector-12, Sonipat vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.1215 dated 03.04.1998 (Exhibit C-1) issued by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)-Opposite Parties/appellants. The complainant paid Rs.69,757 alongwith the application form and the remaining price was paid in instalments. The possession of the plot was offered vide letter No.6385 dated 26.04.2002. Alleging delay in offering possession, the complainant filed complaint No.205 of 2002 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 17.10.2002 (Exhibit R-4) issuing direction to HUDA as under:-

“a)     To pay interest-compensation @ 18% PA on the amount deposited before 3.4.2000 w.e.f.3.4.2000 till 26.4.2002 and on the amount deposited after 3.4.2000 w.e.f. the date of deposit till 26.4.02.

                                      And

b)      Also pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of proceedings.

          Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from today.”

3.      In compliance of the order passed by the District Forum, the HUDA paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant vide Demand Draft No.114057 dated 12.07.2003. However, HUDA filed First Appeal No.1655/2003 on 28.07.2003 before this Commission which was allowed vide order dated 29.08.2011 (Exhibit R-6) and the complaint was dismissed. However, during the pendency of the appeal, an execution application being filed, HUDA paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant. The complainant/respondent filed Revision Petition No.883 of 2012 before Hon’ble National Commission challenging the order Exhibit R-6.

4.      In the meanwhile, the complainant filed second Complaint No.113 of 2004 before the District Forum raising plea that that the HUDA offered possession of the plot in 2002 without completing the development works. The complaint was allowed vide order dated 28.07.2004 (Exhibit R-5) directing the HUDA as under:-

“a)     To complete the development works at the earliest as pointed hereinabove and

b)      To pay interest-compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited w.e.f. 21.04.02 till developments are complete;

c)      And also pay Rs.1000/- as costs of proceedings.”

5.      Challenging the order Exhibit R-5, the complainant filed First Appeal No.2218 of 2004 for enhancement of compensation and HUDA filed First Appeal No.3043 of 2004 for setting aside the order before this Commission.   

6.      Vide common order dated 26.07.2010 (Exhibit R-7) passed by this Commission, F.A. No.2218 of 2004 filed by HUDA was allowed and order Exhibit R-5 was set aside and complaint was dismissed. Consequently, F.A. No.2218 of 2004 filed by complainant was dismissed.

7.      Against the order Exhibit R-7, the complainant filed Revision Petition No.4269-4270 of 2010 before Hon’ble National Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2011 (Exhibit R-8).

8.      In this case, during the pendency of appeal, in compliance of order dated 28.07.2004 (Exhibit R-5), the HUDA paid Rs.2,50,082/- vide cheque No.262801 dated 20.08.2006 and Rs.12,584/- vide cheque No.14,599/- dated 24.06.2005 and Rs.2,09,634/- vide cheque No.7838 dated 28.06.2007 to the complainant.

9.      Revision Petition No.883 of 2012 filed by complainant before Hon’ble National Commission against the order Exhibit R-6 was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 14.03.2013 (Exhibit R-9), However, the time spent in the proceedings from the District Forum to the National Commission was excluded.

10.    Hence, complaint No.275 of 2013 was filed on 25.06.2013 before the District Forum stating that the HUDA raised illegal demand of Rs.4,50,000/- vide letter bearing memo No.5124 dated 24.05.2013 and also sought interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited from the date of deposit; compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs towards the increase in the cost of construction; Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment etc.; and Rs.11,000/- litigation expenses.

11.    The opposite parties/HUDA, denied the allegations of the complainant reiterating the facts stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.    After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 25^th August, 2014 disposed of the complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“The perusal of the documents available on the case file shows that the respondents had already paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as interest-compensation vide DD No.114057 dated 12.7.2003 to the complainant in complaint No.205 of 2002. So, the complainant has already received the relief amount of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest from the respondents. Thus, in our view, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the respondents and similarly, the respondents are not liable to recover any amount from the complainant under the garb of complaint No.205 of 2002 and 113 of 2004 which were decided by the learned District Consumer Forum, Panchkula, vide order dated 17.10.2002 and 28.7.2004 respectively.”

13.    HUDA has challenged the impugned order on the limited issue that the observation of the District Forum that the HUDA is not entitled to recover any amount under the garb of complaint No.205/2002 and Complaint No.113/2004, decided on 17.10.2002 and 28.07.2004 respectively, cannot sustain. Since the issue arising in both the Complaints No.205/2002 and 113/2004, have already been settled and attained finality upto the Hon’ble National Commission, the learned District Forum could not have restrained the HUDA from recovering any amount paid by virtue of orders. The complainant cannot retain any benefit derived on the basis of orders passed by District Forum which ultimately stood set aside by the State Commission and are no longer in existence, else the observation would tantamount to setting at naught orders passed by State Commission and confirmed by Hon’ble National Commission.

14.    In view of this, the appeal is allowed partly to the extent that the HUDA can recover the amount due and payable, if any, from the complainant.

15.    The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

 

Announced: 15.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL