Haryana

StateCommission

A/1115/2018

HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHAN KUMAR KATHURIA - Opp.Party(s)

RANVIR SOOD

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1115 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 21.09.2018

                                                               Date of Decision: 10.04.2019

 

1.      The Estate Officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradikaran, Sector-9/9A, Bahadurgarh-124507.

2.      Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, C-3, HSVP Complex Sector-6, Panchkula.

…..Appellants

Versus

Krishan Kumar Kathuria S/o Sh. Sh.Chela Ram permanent R/o 422 Sector-2, Urban Estate Kurukshetra, at present R/o 905, Arjun Apartment, Dwarka, Delhi.

                   …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.                                                Mrs.Manjula, Member

Present:              Shri Ranvir Sood, Advocate for appellant.

Mr.Krishan Kumar Kathuria respondent in person.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant has been successful in the draw of plots held on 29.08.2008 and intimation in this regard was conveyed to him by O.P. vide its letter dated 06.10.2008.  He was asked to deposit 15% of the total cost of the plot within 30 days of the allotment letter, amounting to Rs.1,80,700/-, which was deposited by the complainant.  He was allotted plot No.397 in Sector 13 UE, Bahadurgarh. He received offer of possession dated 13.06.2011.  The complainant regularly paid all these installments with interest.  The complainant sent demand draft to the Opposite Parties through speed post with request to issue a acknowledgement of such payment, but, instead of receiving the acknowledgement, he received letter in the form of show cause notice dated 06.12.2012 from the O.Ps. to deposit Rs.2,01,438/- within stipulated period and failing to comply with this, he would further be charged a penalty of Rs.20,144/- .  O.Ps. declined the request of the complainant regarding payment of third installment of Rs.1,73,000/-.  He also requested the O.Ps. to change the address, but, the office never bothered to pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  He went to customer care unit of the O.P. where he received a reply stating that his demand draft of Rs.1,73,000/- was misplaced during bank transanction, so please send duplicate demand draft.  Show cause notice dated 31.08.2016  amounting to Rs. 2,91,373/-  was wrong and illegal. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps-appellants by filing a written version before the District Forum, in which, they denied that the complainant regularly paid the installment with interest.  There was a delay of deposit the third installment, as such, notice was served to the complainant.  The complainant was not entitled to asked to remit the amount of Rs.2,01,438/- .  The complainant again deposited the installment of Rs.1,73,000/-  dated 13.06.2013 in the office of O.Ps.  No intimation regarding the change of address was ever received in the office of O.Ps.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directing the respondent not to raise the amount of Rs.2,91,373.60 ps  with penalty of Rs.29,137/-  as raised through notice Ex.P-16 dated 31.08.2016 and O.Ps. are also directed to  pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment, including litigation expenses.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps-appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Ranvir Sood learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.  Krishan Kumar Kathuraia respondent in person. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      There is delay of 85 days in filing of the present appeal. The appellant has moved an application seeking condonation of delay. However, an affidavit has been tendered with the prayer to condone the delay.

7.      It is well settled principle of law that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity and for condoning the delay of each and every delay has to be explained.  Having considered the explanation furnished on behalf of the opposite parties-appellants, we think that it is not a fit case to condone the delay.  Hence, the prayer for condonaton of delay is rejected.

8.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent appeared in person, the basic and foremost question, which requires adjudication by this Commission as to whether the respondent is liable to make the payment of the interest over the delayed payment of an installment which was payable somewhere 5^th of October 2011 and it was actually credited on 13.06.2013. 

9.                As far as the delay is concerned, there is a sufficient  evidence led on behalf of the complainant before the learned District Forum that it was due to the negligent Act on the part of the present appellants or the officials of the appellants that a draft was lost in transit and in case, there is a negligence on the part of the officials of the appellants, in that eventuality, the liability cannot be fastened upon the complainant.

10.              More so, the complainant is a qualified professor and he knows his responsibility and is well aware of the rules and  regulations of the competent authority that each and every installment is to be paid well in time and once it is admitted and proved by leading the sufficient and cogent evidence that it was due to the negligent act of the officials of the appellants, the respondent (hereinafter referred as a “complainant”) would not be liable to pay the interest on the installments. 

11.              Resultantly, this question is answered in affirmative to the extent that the officials of the present appellants would not charge any interest on the installments from the respondent- Krishan Kumar Kathuria. As far as the other terms and conditions for making payment of the extension fees, if any, is concerned, it is a matter of record and is to be settled down by the authorities concern.

12.              Before parting with the judgement, this Commission is highly indebted  to the complainant, who is respondent here in the appeal that he is whole-heartedly extended his full cooperation for the disposal of the present appeal and since the case has been conducted through-out by himself only, it would be a fit case, where the amount of the damages or the quantum of damages allowed to him by the learned District forum to the extent of Rs.11,000/- are hereby enhanced to the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which will be paid within the period of one month from the date of delivering the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum till actual realisation. With the above observation, the appeal stands modified.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

April 10th, 2019            Mrs. Manjula,      Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.