Haryana

Karnal

CC/301/2015

Shri Om Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manjit Singh Estate Officer Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No. 301 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.:07.12.2015

                                                              Date of decision:23.01.2017

 

Shriom Sharma son of Satyanarayan Dutt House no.786/22, Street no.2, Om Shanti Nagar, Devigarh Road Katihal, Haryana pin code 136027 mobile no.9654146741 and 9416446741.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Sector-12, HUDA Complex, Karnal Haryana pine code 123001. Contact no.01842267909.

 

                                                                      ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Shri Amit Munjal Advocate for opposite party.

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he applied to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Karnal under scheme no.SC00000067, on 24.4.2014, vide application no.ONL015379, for allotment of plot in sectors 32-33 Karnal and deposited Rs.1,24,000/- as 10% earnest money. The last date for filing application under the said scheme was 28.4.2014, but lateron HUDA extended last date by one month. He felt that he would suffer loss of interest for one month on his earnest money, therefore, he thought to withdraw the earnest money and use /invest the same for other personal work and apply by fresh application one day before new last date in that regard. He registered a grievance to “know the procedure for withdraw” on HUDA website with grievance id 547121, but did not receive any written response. Therefore, he approached HUDA on toll free no.1800-180-3030. He was informed by representative of HUDA that it was not possible to withdraw the application on that stage and he needed to visit HUDA office for the same with the written application to Estate Officer HUDA. Since he was engaged in his private job at Noida, he could not get leave to visit HUDA office Karnal, therefore, he dropped the idea to withdraw the earnest money deposited by him. On 6.9.2014, he downloaded his registration number from official website HUDA and his application status was displayed as “ELIGI” (eligible). In July, 2015 the draw was announced. He did not succeed in the draw, therefore, earnest money was to be refunded to her accordingly. In July, 2015, the list for refund of applicants of sectors 32-33 Karnal draw through RTGS and cheque were uploaded on HUDA, website but his name was not reflected in the lists. Subsequently, he wrote e-mail regarding his refund. He was shocked with the reply that “I had withdrawn my application before draw” as stated by them. Soon after, he called up on 0184-2267909 Estate Officer HUDA Karnal and the representative told him that application was withdrawn in November, 2014 itself. He asked the representative to provide proof regarding his withdrawal request and if the application was withdrawn in November, 2014 why he had not received the earnest money till July, 2015. On that, the representative told that the matter would be enquired and then replied later, but no reply was received. He tried to contact Panchkula office several times at the e-mail addresses. Apart from that he attempted to contact HUDA officers a number of times, but did not get any proper response. Rather they kept ignoring the phone calls by providing other official numbers and eventually nobody resolved the issue. After long duration of mental harassment, he got refund on 8^th August, 2015. However, did not receive any clarification on his application withdrawal status. It was clear case of harassment. He sought direction to HUDA to allot him plot of 4 marlas as a remedial action and compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- for mental agony and harassment,  Rs.1000/- for telephones calls and Rs.9000/- for his visits to HUDA office.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party, who appeared and filed application for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable. It has been submitted that the complainant is not consumer of HUDA department. He just applied for a plot as per advertisement. Thus, he remained in the capacity of applicant only and as such cannot be termed as consumer in any manner. Therefore, this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The dispute raised by the complainant is manifestly outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, proceedings initiated by the complainant are without jurisdiction.

3.                The complainant filed reply to the said application of the opposite party. It has been pleaded that he was a potential consumer of HUDA for the draw in HUDA scheme no.SC00000067 under the application no.ONL015379 and registration no.UE026/32P/38820 by paying Rs.1,24,000/- as 10% earnest money as per HUDA advertisement. After long period of mental harassment, he got refund of his earnest money on 8^th August, 2015 and the accounts department of HUDA could not furnish any clarification regarding delay in the refund and his application for withdrawal. Therefore, his claim is duly covered under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is maintainable. The opposite party by moving the present application is trying to mislead this forum and wasting precious time.

4.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the file.

5.                Learned counsel for the opposite party put a great thrust upon the contention that the complainant merely moved application for allotment, therefore, he became a prospective investor only and does not fall within the ambit of the consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Anr. Versus Krishan Pal Chander 2010(1) CPC 99.

6.                On the other hand, the complainant vehemently argued that by depositing the earnest money for allotment of plot in HUDA scheme he became consumer within the definition of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, his complaint is very well maintainable and the application of the opposite party is liable to be dismissed               

7.                In Krishal Pal Chander’s case (supra)  the complainant had applied for allotment of the plot, but plot was not allotted to him because the balance amount was not deposited despite registered communication. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs.Kartick Das, reported in II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC)= (1994) 4 SCC 225  it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that mere application for allotment does not give any right of allotment. The applicant applied for allotment and became a prospective investor only and not a consumer till allotment of the plot, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.

8.                The proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in the aforediscussed authority squarely covers the facts of the present case. The complainant only applied for allotment and no allotment was offered made to him, therefore, he became a prospective investor only and not a consumer. Consequently, his complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable, though he can avail of other remedies provided by law.

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is not maintainable, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. However, complainant would be at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance in competent court/forum as per provisions of law. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member