Haryana

Ambala

CC/150/2023

BALRAM GARG. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (IMPROVEMENT TRUST CELL) AMBALA. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINAV KALIA

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AMBALA

 

Complaint case no.	:	150 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	11.04.2023
Date of decision	:	19.04.2023

 

1. Balram Garg son of Shri Daya Ram aged about 62 years,
2. Madhubala wife of Shri Balram Garg aged about 63 years,

Both R/o House No.110, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City, Haryana.       

……. Complainants.

                                                Versus

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

….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member

 

Present:      Shri Amandeep Bawa, Advocate, counsel for the complainants.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Office report seen. The present complaint has been filed by complainants, under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (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.57,094/- charged illegally towards enhancement of additional price over and above than due on plot owned by complainants.
2. To pay interest @ 15% per annum on above amount from the date of payment to OP, till realization.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/-, as compensation for causing financial loss, mental agony to the complainants.
4. To pay Rs.5,000/-, as litigation costs.
382.  

          Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem      fit.        

2.           Brief facts of the case are thatthe complainants purchased plot bearing no.110, measuring 162 Square Meters situated at Vikas Vihar (also known as Scheme No.19) Ambala City, which was carved out as per Master plan by erstwhile Improvement Trust Ambala, after which, the same was approved by the State of Haryana and now by act of Government, the said Improvement Trust Ambala is merged with the OP. The plot previously owned by complainants was carrying tentative price and the condition of the then Improvement Trust Ambala regarding payment of additional price was agreed to by complainants in accordance with terms and conditions of allotment letter/conveyance deed. The complainants received a demand notice No.747/ITC dated 18.05.2015, for payment of Rs.90,914/- towards additional price pertaining to plot owned by complainants, payable within 30 days and accordingly the complainants deposited Rs.90,914/-, vide receipts no.7890 and 7915 dated 17.06.2015. The said amount recovered by the OP was illegal and without any justification as in a similar situated case, some of the resident of Vikas Vihar, filed a consumer complaint No.14 of 2018, before this Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 02.08.2019, whereby OP was directed to refund the excess amount to the allottees.  After coming to know about the said order passed by this Commission, complainants contacted the OP to refund the excess amount paid by them in lieu of demand notice dated 18.05.2015, but it did not pay any heed towards the same and advised the complainants to file a complaint before this Hon’ble Commission.  Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the OP, complainants filed the present complaint before this Hon’ble Commission. It is apposite to mention here that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 had excluded the time of limitation w.e.f 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. However, complainants is having a concurrent cause of action against the inaction of the OP, being the competent authority had charged the excess enhancement amount from them. The cause of action has accrued to the complainants firstly on 18.05.2015, when the OPs sent a demand letter. Further the cause of action had accrued on 02.08.2019, when this Hon’ble Commission had passed an order directing the OP to refund the excess amount charged by the OP, in the similar situated case. In the case of the complainants, the cause of action is concurrent in nature and continuing as the OP had not refunded the amount so deposited by the complainants till date. Thus, the present complaint is being filed within the period prescribed under the Act, therefore, is well within the period of limitation. The OP while spreading out award of Hon'ble High Court arising out of CWP 2815 of 1987 (decided on 19.12.2008) wrongly added following area as 'non saleable area' and accordingly charged the amount of enhancement pertaining to following area from plot holders of residential area and including complainants as under:-

(a) Area toward INCO side = 7835 S M

(b) Area towards Railway line =4080 S M

(c) Area under Sarai (Community Centre) - 2100 S M

The OP wrongly took area under shopping consisting of Shops under rent, SCFs, Booths as 3480 S M and not 6970 SM including parking in front of said shopping area. As a matter of fact, the total shopping area is 6970 S M in Scheme no.19. The award of enhancement passed by the Hon'ble High court in the above detailed CWP was on entire area consisting of 79515 square meter and not on limited area. The OP out of total calculated enhancement of Rs.2,29,19,354.93, charged a sum of Rs.46,25,021.17 towards interest illegally which is not payable being time barred as the OP did not issue demand notice to plot holders/assignees for more than 6 years (i.e. 77 months) and charged interest @ 15% on the amount of enhancement of price during that period, illegally. The OP under the threatened action as detailed in the notice dated 18.05.2015, is trying to recover the amount mentioned in the impugned notice and 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 more amount than the actual amount payable of the enhancement, the OP has committed deficiency in service.Hence, the present complaint.

3.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and have also carefully gone through the case file.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the complainants received the demand notice dated 18.05.2015 for payment of additional amount of Rs.90,914/-, pertaining to the plot owned by them, from the OP. Accordingly, complainants paid the amount of Rs.90,914/- i.e Rs.60,000/- vide receipt No.7890 dated 17.06.2015 and Rs.30,914/-, vide receipt No.7915 dated 17.06.2015. The said amount was recovered by the OP illegally and without any justification and in a similar situated case, some of the resident of Vikas Vihar filed a consumer complaint No.14 of 2018 before this Hon’ble Commission, which was allowed and vide order dated 02.08.2019, this Hon’ble Commission directed the OP to refund the amountreceived from the said consumer. After coming to know about the said order passed by this Hon’ble Commission, complainants requested the OP for refund of the amount taken in excess from him, but it refused to refund the said amount. The cause of action firstly accrued to the complainantson 18.05.2015 and thereafter on 02.08.2019, when this Hon’ble Commission ordered the OP to refund the excess amount.

It may be stated here that on 17.06.2015, complainants paid the amount of Rs.90,914/-, as demanded by the OP, vide demand notice dated 18.05.2015. Meaning thereby, cause of action has arisen to the complainants for redressal of their grievances on 17.06.2015 and not from the order dated 02.08.2019, passed in CC No.14 of 2018, in the case of Viplove Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation (Improvement Trust Cell). As per Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint could be filed within the period of two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. Since the cause of action arose to the complainants on 17.06.2015, therefore, as per Section 69 of CP Act, 2019, complainants could have filed the complaint upto 16.06.2017. Passing of order by this Commission in some other complaint case, referred to by the complainants, will not extend the period of limitation, in favour of the complainants. However, complainants have filed the present complaint on 11.04.2023, for redressal of her grievance i.e. after a delay of about five years, nine months approximately, from the date of accrual of cause of action. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

5.           In the case of State Bank Of India vs M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), CIVIL APPEAL No. 2067 of 2002, decided on 20 March, 2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- provisions of Section 24-A of CP Act, 1986 is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of action. It is further held that “………If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside……”
6.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. Certified copy of this order be supplied to thecomplainants, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules.File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.     

Announced on:-19.04.2023.

 

	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
	Member	President