Haryana

Ambala

CC/14/2018

Viplove Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muncipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Baikunth Nath

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  14 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   04.01.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   02.08.2019.

 

Viplove Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, r/o 38, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

                                                     Versus

 

Municipal Corporation (Improvement Trust Cell), Ambala through its Commissioner.  

          ….…. Opposite Party.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund Rs.76352.68 alongwith interest @15% P.A. from the date of payment, till its realization.  
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a plot bearing No.38, measuring 207 square meters situated at Vikas Vihar, Ambala City (also known as Scheme No.19), as per Master Plan by erstwhile Improvement Trust, Ambala, which is merged with the OP. The plot in question was carrying tentative price and the condition of Improvement Trust, Ambala regarding payment of additional price, was agreed by him in accordance as per terms & conditions of the allotment letter/conveyance deed. Vide No.674/1 TC dated 18.05.2015, he received a demand notice for payment of Rs.1,16,168/- towards additional price payable within 30 days regarding the plot in question, accordingly, he deposited Rs.90,000/- & Rs.29,566/- vide receipts No.7893 dated 17.06.2015 & 97/550 dated 29.04.2016 respectively under protest. The OP while spreading out award of the Hon’ble High Court arising out of CWP 2815 of 1987 (decided on 19.12.2008) wrongly, added ‘non saleable area’ and charged the amount of enhancement pertaining to following area from the plot holders of residential area, including complainant:-

1. Area toward INCO side                          -        7835 SM
2. Area towards Railway line                     -        4080 SM
3. Area under Sarai Community Centre    -        2100 SM

                   The OP wrongly took area under shopping consisting of shops under rent, SCFs, Booths as 3480 SM instead of 6970 SM including parking in front of said shopping area. The total shopping area is 6970 SM in scheme No.19. The award of enhancement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the CWP 2815 of 1987, was on entire area consisting of 79515 SM and not on limited area. The OPs while calculating the enhanced amount, charged a sum of Rs.46,25,021.17 towards interest illegally, which was not payable being time barred, as the OP did not issue demand notice to plot holders/assignees for more than 6 years (77 months) and illegally charged interest @15% on the amount of enhancement of price during that period. In case, the total amount of Rs.2,29,19,354.93 is spread over the entire saleable area (excluding non saleable area falling underneath roads, parks, green belts etc. in residential area) and excluding excess amount of interest as mentioned above, the recoverable rate would come out to be Rs.208.76 per square meter. By charging the amount of enhancement at higher rate, than the actual payable amount, the OP has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that earlier in the year 1987, the enhanced land compensation was demanded firstly, which was duly deposited by the then allottee alongwith interest, without raising any objection. No excess amount or wrong amount has been recovered from the complainant in any manner. The amount of compensation of the commercial area has not been calculated for the residential area. The dispute involving interest cannot be considered by the Consumer Forum as held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in the appeals No.1950 & 2025 of 1998, titled as Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and another and by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a revision petition No.784 of 1994 titled as Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kamini Chopra. This Forum has no jurisdiction to consider the dispute involving and the complainant is not a consumer, because, no relationship of consumer and hirer of service subsists between the complainant & the OP, as the complainant is not the real allottee and is a re-allottee. As per terms & conditions of the allotment, the allotment was on tentative price and the allottee is bound to deposit the enhanced land compensation as per the Award of the Tribunal/Courts. The amount of compensation of the commercial area has not been calculated for the residential area. The area towards INCO, lying vacant is being used by the residents of Palika Vihar Colony and the area towards railway line is reserved for green belt for the resident of Vikas Vihar and the community centre is also for the welfare of the residents of the Palika Vihar. The amount has been calculated rightly and correctly while the correct saleable area was taken firstly in the year 1987 at the time of first enhancement. It is totally wrong and denied that the OP did not issue notices for more than six years. It is also totally wrong and denied that the recoverable rate was Rs.291/- per Sq. meter in any manner and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-21 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, despite availing five opportunities, the OP failed to lead any other evidence except Annexure R1, as such, evidence of the OP has been closed on 20.11.2018 by the order of this Forum.

4.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased a plot No.38 measuring 207 square meter situated at Vikas Vihar, Ambala City (also known as scheme No.19) from the OP and it had sent a demand notice dated 18.05.2015 for payment of additional price of Rs.1,16,168/- for the said plot. The complainant has submitted that he had deposited the amount of Rs.90,000/- vide receipt dated 17.06.2015 (Annexure C-19) and Rs.29,566/- vide receipt dated 29.04.2016 (Annexure C21) under protest. Since the OP had calculated the amount of enhancement for the whole of the acquired area without excluding the area retained by it for the purpose other than the residential purposes, therefore, he requested the OP to charge the enhanced compensation from the complainant for the residential area by excluding the area retained by it and refund the excess amount charged from him. However, when the OP did not pay any heed to his request, then he filed the present complaint on 04.01.2018 i.e. within a period of two years from 29.04.2016, the date on which he made the last payment. It may be stated here that in the written version, the OP has not taken objection regarding limitation. Thus, we have no reason to disagree with the complainant. The complainant has further contended that as per the information given by the State Public Information Officer and Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ambala, vide letter dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure C-9), sought by Vikas Vihar Welfare Association, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City, under RTI, it is apparent that the OP retained the area of 3480 square meter for the shops to rent out, 3490 square meter for parking, vacant land of 7835 square meter behind the House No.93 to 106 and 4080 square meter land for sale to the plot holders for kitchen garden to House No.68 to 93 and 2100 square meter for community centre, in total 20985 square meter (3480+3490+7835+4080+2100). The complainant and the other residents of that area had to pay the enhanced compensation for the residential area of 58730 square meter (79715-20985), which comes out to be 208.76 per SM (Rs.1,22,60,805.62/58730). Whereas, the OP had demanded the enhanced compensation vide demand notice dated 18.05.2015 @Rs.561.20 per square meter for an amount of Rs.1,16,161/- (Annexure C-17), without excluding the area retained by it for the purposes other than for residential purposes, as such, the OP had taken the excess amount on account of enhanced compensation from the complainant, thus, is liable to refund the excess amount charged from him. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the amount of enhancement compensation for the residential area has rightly been calculated by excluding the commercial area, as per rules and nothing in excess has been charged from the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that neither any such rules nor any document regarding how the OP had calculated the amount of enhancement, has been placed on record. However, from the letter dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure C-9), it is quite clear that the total amount which was to be paid to the land owners, was of Rs.2,29,19,354/-, inclusive of miscellaneous and Court expenses. The total area acquired was 79715 square meter, out of which, the residential area was of 58730 square meter, as such, the actual enhancement of compensation of the residential area comes out to Rs.1,68,85,826.79 (Rs.2,29,19,354.93/79715 x 58730 = Rs.1,68,85,826.79). From the document regarding calculation of interest upto 31.03.2009 (Annexure C-16), it is evident that the excess interest demanded by the OP was of Rs.46,25,021.11 and after deducting the said amount of Rs.46,25,021.11 from Rs.1,68,85,826.79, the actual enhanced compensation for the residential area comes outs to Rs.1,22,60,805.68. Thus, the legal demand of enhanced compensation for the residential area comes out is Rs.208.76 per Square Meter (Rs.1,22,60,805.62/58730). Admittedly, the OP received the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,16,168/- from the complainant, whereas, it had to receive an amount of Rs.43,213.32 (208.76 x 207 SM). In this way, the OP had received Rs.72,954.68 (in round figure Rs.72,955/-) in excess from the complainant, therefore, it is liable to refund the said amount to the complainant alongwith interest. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the metal agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.72,955/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filling the present complaint, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                    The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :02.08.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President