Haryana

StateCommission

A/837/2014

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.837 of 2014

                                           Date of Institution: -09/22.09.2014

Date of Decision: 14.12.2016

 

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-13-17, Panipat.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Mohinder Singh S/o Sh.Dharam Singh R/o H.No.8-C, Narain Singh Park, Panipat, Distt. Panipat.

          …..Respondent

 

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  None for the appellants.

                             Mr.A.K.Bishnoi, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by complainant that he was allotted plot No.262, Sector-6, HUDA, Panipat vide letter No.7642 dated 05.06.2002, but, possession was never delivered after completing all the basic amenities.  He filed complaint No.584 of 2002 titled as Mohinder Singh Vs. HUDA and others wherein order dated 21.02.2005 was passed.  HUDA preferred appeal No.2170 of 2005 against that order, but, the same was dismissed by this commission vide order dated 23.03.2009.  HUDA filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.5004 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against that order which was dismissed on 07.09.2010.  In similar matters also Huda was directed to handover possession, as detailed in para No.3 of the complaint. He went to opposite parties (O.P.) time and again for delivery of possession, but, to no avail. Ultimately he filed an application for handing over the possession on 09.05.2011, but, no reply was received. When he filed execution petition under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) O.Ps. demanded Rs.1,66,855/- from him vide memo NO.A-III-11/8164 dated 24.06.2011, whereas he was not liable to pay any amount because he had already paid all the installments.  Acting upon his request O.Ps. sent memo NO.A-II-11/10167 dated 09.08.2011 to deposit Rs.7226/- upto 05.08.2011. Instead of complying order passed in the previous petition they were raising frivolous demand.  They be directed to deliver possession and execute sale deed in his favour and to pay Rs.9.90/- lacs as of compensation  and damages  and also pay interest @ 15% p.a.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the appeal, revision and SLP filed by them were dismissed on the ground of limitation and not on merits.  Complainant was offered possession vide memo NO.8164 dated 24.06.2011, but, he did not come forward. After adjusting the amount paid by complainant he was asked to deposit Rs.7221/- before taking possession, but, instead of complying with that direction he filed this complaint.  Objections about jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the compliant.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 04.08.2014  and directed as under:-

“Hence in view of above discussion, the present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties to handover the possession of the plot to the allottee and to pay interest @ 10% on the amounts deposited by the allottee from the date of deposits till the possession is offered i.e. 24.06.2011. this order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.”

4.       Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      None has appeared on behalf of the appellants since four adjournments.  The appeal relates to the year 2014. So in the absence of the counsel for the appellants, arguments of respondent counsel are heard. File perused.

6.      From the perusal of impugned order it is clear that O.Ps. were directed to deliver possession of property in dispute to complainant vide order dated 31.03.2010.  Instead of  complying with that order HUDA preferred appeal before this commission, revision before Hon’ble National Commission and SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court, but, they all were dismissed. When complainant filed an application for execution of that order they have raised this demand.  If any amount was due towards complainant, they should have alleged before District Forum at that time.  Now it does not lie in their mouth that complainant is liable to pay this amount. When an order has been passed in favour of complainant-respondent, the appellants-O.Ps. are liable to comply the same in letter and spirit.  The learned District forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect from all angle.  Impugned order is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification.

 

December  14th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.