Haryana

Panchkula

CC/131/2015

AVDHESH RAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAMAR ESTATES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K SUD.

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	131 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	23.08.2016

                                                                                          

Avdhesh Rai S/o Sh.Chhedi Ram, R/o House No.14, Ward No.28, Maheshpur, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Samar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Promoters Colonizers, Developers and Builders, Administrative Office at ESS VEE Apartments, Sector-20, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2.       Ms.Manju Sharma, Assistant Project Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Panchkula.

3.       Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Panchkula.

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Nitin Sood, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Manish Kapila, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Mr.Manju Sharma, project officer for the Ops No.2 & 3.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a poor person and working as a private gardener in Panchkula in various houses on piecemeal basis and he applied for a flat measuring 200 sq. feet under the Social Scheme floated by the Govt. of Haryana for allotment of EWS flat in Group Housing Colony on the land measuring 7.182 acres (Pocket-B) pertaining to licence No.609 to 612 of 2006 dated 27.03.2006 in Sector-20, Panchkula being promoted & developed by the Op No.1 by depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- i.e. 10% of the total sale consideration of the flat in question vide demand draft No.012468 dated 23.12.2011 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Panchkula and the receipt dated 23.12.2011 was issued by the Op No.1. The draw of lots of the flat was held on 07.06.2013 in which the complainant was successful and he was allotted a EWS flat No.106 and he was directed to submit certain documents/affidavit vide letter dated 10.07.2013 of the Op No.1. The complainant has submitted all the documents and completed all the formalities as required by the OP No.1 in the last week of July, 2013 but the Op No.1 has not allotted the flat to the complainant rather asked the complainant to have clarification/certificate regarding the BPL status of the complainant. The OP No.2 has issued a certificate to the complainant on behalf of The Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, DUDA, Panchkula vide letter No.1085 dated 03.02.2014 whereby he was informed that his name has been recorded in the BPL list at Sr.No.8767 and he was entitled for all the facilities available to the BPL card holder. However, the Op No.2 in order to adjust somebody else took the original certificate issued at Sr. No.1085 dated 03.02.2014 from the complainant and in lieu thereof the OP No.2 had issued a fresh letter dated 03.02.2014 to the complainant that his name was recorded at Sr. No.8767 which was deleted and the matter is pending in the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh regarding the list of BPL candidates. The complainant sought the information under RTI Act which was provided vide letter dated 15.06.2015 and the complainant was asked to get the information regarding the latest proceedings regarding the CWP No.1581 of 2010 titled as Pardeep Kumar vs. State of Haryana from the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in respect of the ineligible candidates/card holders. The Ops did not allot the flat to the complainant despite completing all the formalities. This act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the Op No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that Licence No.609 of 2006 under the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 for development of a Group Housing Colony on the land measuring 21.75 acres falling in the revenue estate of village Kundi, Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula were granted by the Director, Town and Country Planning to Op No.1. As per terms and conditions of the Bilateral Agreement executed by the Op No.1 with the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana Chandigarh, Op No.1 is required to reserve 15% of the total number of flats developed or proposed to be developed for allotment to economically weaker section categories and the area of such flats should not be less than 200 sq. ft. It is submitted that the flats were allotted as per Govt. instructions issued from time to time. It is submitted that as per the zoning plans approved by the department, both the Pockets A & B could be developed independently. It is submitted that for Pocket A, the draw of lots for allotment 136 EWS category flats was held on 21.02.2011 and allotment letters to the successful applicants have already been issued. It is submitted that the State Govt. vide memo No.LC-147-7/16/2006-2TCP dated 03.02.2010 issued policy guidelines for allotment of land/flat earmarked for EWS in the licenced colony. It is submitted that advertisement was issued in the leading newspapers on 18.11.2011 inviting applications from the eligible persons for allotment of 59 flat of EWS category falling in pocket B pertaining to licence No.609 to 612 of 2006 dated 27.03.2006 in Sector 20, Panchkula being promoted and developed by Op No.1. It is submitted that after receipt of applications, as per instructions issued by the Director General Town and Country Planning, the case was referred to the Senior Town Planner, Panchkula for fixing the date for holding draw of lot for allotment of 59 EWS category flats. It is submitted that as per letter No.1919 dated 13.05.2013 issued by the Senior Town Planner, Panchkula, the date for draw of lot was fixed for 09.07.2013 which later on pre-pond to 07.06.2013. It is submitted that a list of 59 applicants were prepared who were successful in the draw of lot and besides 59 applicants were kept in the waiting list. It is submitted that as per instruction dated 13.05.2013, the Additional Deputy Commission-cum-Executive Officer, Panchkula was requested vide letter dated 04.07.2013 to verify the status of the successful candidate as belonging to BPL family. It is submitted that the OP No.2 vide letter dated 13.08.2013 verified that only 13 applicants belong to BPL family from the original list and 15 applicants from the waiting list. The remaining applicants were not found to be falling in the BPL category. It is submitted that after perusal of the letter revealed that the name of the complainant did not find mention in the list verified by District Administration as belonging to BPL family and no flat of the EWS category could be allotted to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant in the application for allotment of flat has mentioned his address as House No.53, Gali No.3, Maheshpur, Sector-21, Panchkula whereas in the Ration Card, his address had been mentioned as House No.15, Maheshpur, Sector-21, Panchkula. It is submitted that the Op No.3 issued a letter dated 15.06.2015 in which the BPL card No.8767 dated 31.03.2011, earlier issued to the complainant, had been cancelled by the Op No.3. It is submitted that in the survey conducted by the District Administration in the year 2011, the complainant was not found to be falling in the BPL category and a revised letter had been issued to the complainant by the OP No.3 vide letter dated 03.02.2014 in which it was stated that he did not belong to BPL category. It is submitted that the complainant was successful in the draw of lot held on 07.06.2013 and he was to be allotted flat No.106 under Tower No.T-10. It is submitted that the complainant was directed vide office letter dated 10.07.2013 to submit certain documents including copy of the BPL card showing his name duly attested by Notary/Gazetted Officer. It is submitted that the name of the successful applicants in the draw of lots held on 07.06.2013 would be got verified from the list of BPL family, in case he was found to be ineligible on any account, the allotment would be cancelled. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In reply, the Ops No.2 and 3 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that CWP No.1581 of 2010 titled Pardeep Kumar vs. State of Haryana was filed before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court re-assessment of status of BPL Card holders in the State of Haryana was conducted. It is submitted that survey was conducted in accordance with law and by adopting proper procedure, public in general was also informed through Munadi for the same and new list of BPL Card holders was prepared by the concerned officials as per the policy of Govt. but the name of the complainant did not fall under BPL category as per the newly survey conducted by the concerned department. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 & R1/2, R1/2A, R1/3 to R1/15 and close the evidence. Similarly, the Ops No.2 and 3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/3 and close the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and Op No.1 and project officer of Ops No.2 and 3 and have also perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that being BPL card holder the complainant had applied for a flat measuring 200 sq. feet under the Social Scheme floated by the Govt. of Haryana for allotment of EWS flat in Group Housing Colony on the land measuring 7.182 acres (Pocket-B) in Sector-20, Panchkula being promoted & developed by the Op No.1 by depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- i.e. 10% of the total sale consideration of the flat in question vide demand draft No.012468 dated 23.12.2011 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Panchkula and the receipt dated 23.12.2011 was issued by the Op No.1.  The complainant has also submitted Domicile Certificate, BPL Certificate and duly attested affidavit alongwith the application Form (Annexure C-27). The complainant had been successful in draw of lots and he was allotted a EWS flat No.106 with a direction to submit certain documents/affidavit vide letter dated 10.07.2013 of the Op No.1. Further, the complainant has submitted all the documents and completed all the formalities as required by the OP No.1 in the last week of July, 2013 but the Ops have not allotted the flat to the complainant despite completing all the formalities
7. Learned counsel for the Ops have argued that State Govt. vide memo No.LC-147-7/16/2006-2TCP dated 03.02.2010 issued policy guidelines for allotment of land/flat earmarked for EWS in the licenced colony and regarding this applications were invited on 18.11.2011 from the eligible persons for allotment of 59 flat of EWS category falling in pocket B in Sector 20, Panchkula being promoted and developed by Op No.1.  After draw of lot, the Additional Deputy Commission-cum-Executive Officer, Panchkula was requested vide letter dated 04.07.2013 to verify the status of the successful candidate as belonging to BPL family. OP No.2 vide letter dated 13.08.2013 verified that only 13 applicants belong to BPL family from the original list and 15 applicants from the waiting list but the name of the complainant did not find mention in the verified list as belonging to BPL family. Further the Op No.3 issued a letter dated 15.06.2015 regarding cancelling of BPL card No.8767 dated 31.03.2011 which was earlier issued to the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant was also not found to be falling in BPL Category in the survey conducted by the District Administration in the year 2011. On 03.02.2014 a revised letter was issued to the complainant and it was intimated that he did not belong to BPL category. It is submitted that the complainant was successful in the draw of lot held on 07.06.2013 and he was allotted flat No.106 under Tower No.T-10 but the name of the successful applicants in the draw of lots held on 07.06.2013 would be got verified from the list of BPL family and in case he was found to be ineligible on any account, the allotment would be cancelled.
8. The arguments put forth on behalf of the Ops are devoid of any force as Annexure C-1 i.e. photo copy of ration card reveals that the complaints belongs to BPL category. In order to strengthen his case the complainant has also placed on file copy of certificate bearing No.1085 dated 03.02.2014 regarding his falling in BPL category as Annexure C-5 duly issued by competent authority.  The OP No.2 issued another certificate Annexure C-6 whereby it has been intimated that the name of the complainant has been deleted from the list of BPL category. It is strange that both the certificates bearing No. 1085 dated 03.02.2014. In one certificate it has been mentioned that the complainant will be entitled for all the facilities under BPL category whereas in another certificate it has been written that his name has been deleted from the list of persons fallen under BPL category.   It is worthwhile to mention here that Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) is a term used to refer to those citizens or households with income below a certain threshold level. The scheme for the allotment of the flats floated by Ops was for EWS but the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have not placed on file any evident/documents to show that what criteria has been adopted for deleting the name of the complainant from the list of the persons fallen under BPL category. Though the OP No.2 & 3 have come with the plea that during survey the complainant was found ineligible as his per capita income exceeds to Rs.443.21 paisa as mentioned in Annexure R2/3 but they did not produce the survey report/income certificate submitted by the complainant and the method/procedure adopted by them to reach at a conclusion that such person is eligible to be fallen under BPL category and such person do not fall within the category of BPL on the case file. Moreover, they have also not filed copy and status of the case pending before Hon’ble High Court regarding list of BPL despite mentioning it Annexure C-6. Another surprising factor which this Forum has noticed that the complainant had submitted his application on 23.12.2011 duly acknowledged by OP No.1 (Annexure C-2) and the draw of lots was held on 07.06.2013 as mentioned in Annexure C-4, issued by OP No.1. The scheme issued by OP No.1 was closed on 25.12.2011 (Annexure C-3). It took almost 1-1/2 years to observe the draw of lots. Annexure R1/5 i.e. copy of letter dt. 13.08.2013 written by ADC to Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula regarding comparison of the names mentioned in the list of BPL prepared for EWS flats and the name of the complainant was found mentioned in that list also. But the Deputy Commissioner,  Panchkula has not forwarded the same to the OP No.1. However, on 03.02.2014 the OP No.2 issued two certificates (Annexure C-5   &    Annexure C-6).    In Annexure C-5 it has been mentioned that all facilities of BPL can be provided to the complainant as his name was found mentioned in the list of BPL at Sr.No.8767 whereas in Annexure C-6 it has been mentioned that the name of the complainant  has been deleted.   The Ops are  failed to explain which   of the certificate  is correct.   As per condition of 5 of letter dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure R1/3)  The District Town Planner, Panchkula is directed to scrutinize/check the application forms for allotment of EWS plot/flat and original advertisement published in the news papers may be sought out as per policy at his own level and will further assure that applications are processed according to the guidelines issued vide memo No.53-89 dated 01.04.2011 by the head office.  This letter was written prior to date of draw of lots, therefore, it can be easily presumed that the application and documents submitted by the complainant for draw of lots were checked and scrutinized by the concerned authorities, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that at the time of filing of the application as well as at the time of observing of draw of lots the complainant was covered under the category of BPL. Moreover, the OP No.1 has also received the 10 % of the total  sale consideration of the flat in question from the complainant at the time of filing of the application. In Annexure R1/1 (copy of policy for allotment of land/flats earmarked for Economical Weaker Section in the licensed colonies) the allotment terms have been mentioned. As per condition No.2 of the Allotment terms The allotment will be done through draw of lots in the presence of Committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner or his representative (at least of the cadre of Haryana Civil Services), Senior Town Planner of the Circle, Representative of Director, Town & Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana and Developer/Colonizer concerned. The policy for allotment of land/flats was issued on 03.02.2010 i.e. much prior to submission of the application by the complainant as well as draw date i.e. 07.06.2013. As per Annexure R1/2 the complainant had submitted domicile certificate of Haryana duly issued by the concerned authorities at Panchkula on 17.11.2008. From the above, it is clear that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have not come before this Forum with clean hands and it appears that the matter seems to have been unnecessarily confused and confounded and such like behavior from a government institution is not acceptable. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted with the object to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers, as a measure for economical and speedy remedy for the settlement of their disputes and matters connected therewith. Since the OP No.1 has accepted the amount of the deposited amount and the complainant has been declared successful in draw of lots, therefore, we have no hitch to reach a conclusion that the complainant should have been allotted flat in question but the OPs did not do so. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and directed the OPs as under:

1. To allot a flat applied for by the complainant under EWS scheme being eligible and successful on the date of draw of lots i.e. on 07.06.2013.
2. To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for harassment, mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
3. To make the payment of Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.

This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance

 

 

Announced      (S.P.Attri)                 (Anita Kapoor)          (Dharam Pal)

23.08.2016       Member                             Member                       President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal                                                                                                President