Delhi

New Delhi

CC/927/2010

Om Prakash Swami - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.TC/927/10                            Dated:

Case No.CC/370/07     

In the matter of:

Om Prakash Swami, S/o Sh. M.C Swami,

R/o D/184, Goyla Dairy Road, Shyam Vihar,

Phase-I, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., HDIDC, Through its M.D,

        C-8, Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi

 

2. Regd. Office at: HSIDC,

        C-13, 14, Sector-6, Panchkula-134109

 

3. The Estate Manager,

        HSIDC, NOEW HSIIDC,

        Growth Centre, Bawal,

        Distt. Rewari, Haryana-120501

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

The facts of the complaint are that in pursuance to the advertisement in Hindustan Times dated 25.06.2000, complainant contacted OP at C-8, Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi and submitted application form no.001173 on 26.02.2000 with initial deposit of Rs.33,750/- towards 10% booking money for HSDIC free hold residential plot of 450 sq. meters at Bawal site of OP. The office of OP at that time was in Delhi.

The OP issued allotment letter of plot no.11 sector 2 at Bawal and he complied with all requirements and paid 3 EMIs in time, at Delhi Office. However on 19.07.02, he was informed by OP that his file is transferred to the field office at Bawal, where he should further correspond & deposit. This was when; he was living at Dilshad Gardern address. On 05.08.04, he shifted to another house on rent at address of D/39, Shyam Vihar-I, New Delhi and informed OP at Bawal vide registered letter 14.08.04 about changed address. He again shifted back to his original address on 07.10.05 and again informed OP. Later on he came to know that OP had issued a offer of possession letter at old address which was returned back undelivered and in the mean while he paid regular installments.

It is alleged that on 06.01.06, he received a demand of Rs.89,346/- imposing 18% compound interest, upto 17.12.05, with further interest of 14% assuming the service of un-served and returned offer letter of possession dated 30.09.04 and 16.05.05. He was asked to make full payment upto 31.01.06 to regularize the allotment of plot. He made enquiries and sought detailed reason for penalty etc but deposited the demand of Rs.89,346/-.

It is alleged that OP, itself later on admitted that OP assumed service of offer of possession on complaint and demand penalty for not completing construction in time. This is alleged to be arbitrary and not legally payable by him.

The grievance is that though he paid all installment in time, OP still charged higher amount, and he had to live on rent by spending money, due to delay in possession of plot to him, despite all payments made in time and seeks compensation for harassment etc.

We have considered the case in the light of documents filed by complainant. It is seen that complainant informed of change of address on 14.08.04, informed that he had shifted to D/39 Gola Diary Road, Shyam Vihar Phase-I, Najafgarh and informed again on 14.10.05, about shifting back to his original home. The offer of possession letter was issued by OP on 30.09.04 at old address, after being informed of change of address on 14.08.04. This shows that he could not know of time given for construction on plot constructed in the given time. The OP should have reconsidered the changing of higher interest as penalty of Rs.89,346/- for delay; in construction and this demand should have been reversed or waived. As against this factual position, the reply of OP is silent on this aspect of sending letter at old address despite shifting. It has raised technical objection of limitation, arbitration clause or other technical plea that complainant was not a consumer. It is also stated that for paucity of funds he has not to blame OP.

After considering the rival case of both the parties, we hold OP deficient in service to the extent of imposing penalty of Rs.89,346/- without proof of delivery of letter of offer of possession as admitted by OPs in its letter of 02.01.06 placed on record.

We direct OP to return this amount with interest of 9% from date of deposit till payment. No compensation on other grounds in the prayer can be granted. If any other interest is charged on this demand of Rs.89,346/- that will also be reversed. We award a compensation of Rs.35,000/- inclusive of litigation expenses for harassment and deficiency.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on ……………….

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER