STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.   :       142 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution :      30.01.2015

                                                Date of Decision          :        14.05.2015

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula

2.      Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh, Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

                              Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Pankaj Kumar Jakhar son of Sh. Raj Singh Jakhar, resident of House No.86, Ward No.14, Adarsh Nagar, Jhajjar (Haryana).

Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

Present:              Sh. Piyush Gaur, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Ms. Nancy Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

          The instant appeal has been filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another-opposite parties (for short ‘HUDA’) against the order dated November 14^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jhajjar, whereby, complaint filed by Pankaj Kumar Jakhar-complainant was allowed.  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “5.     In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents who failed to provide the basic amenities to the complainant as per their policy.  Therefore, we direct the respondents to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant/original allottee after the expiry of three years of the date of allotment till the date of offer of possession.  The respondents are further directed to provide the basic amenities in the sector as per plan/scheme to the complainant within a period of six months i.e. water supply be given through pipe line, the sewerage system be connected with disposal centre/treatment plant, the electric poles be placed at the proper poles, the roads be made available as per plan of sector 6 to connect the link road, high tension wires be  placed at their proper place, quality of roads already in sector be improved etc which are the basic needs of inhabitants/allottees/complainant of sector 6, Jhajjar.  It is also clear that the complainant has also suffered mental agony, harassment etc due to the deficient act of the respondents and the complainant had to file the present complaint before this Forum.  Hence, we further direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, Rs.3300/- Local Commission fee along with litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”    

2.      Major Surajbhan was allotted plot No.477, Sector 6, Jhajjar measuring 324 square meter vide memo No.1288, dated March 07^th, 2008.  Complainant purchased the said plot from Major Surajbhan and was issued re-allotment letter dated August 11^th, 2011.  Complainant was offered possession of plot vide memo dated January 16^th, 2012.  It was stated that in terms of the applications invited, in the event of failure to offer the possession within a period of three years from the date of allotment, HUDA would pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the allottee after the expiry of three years till the date of offer of possession. It was submitted that though HUDA had offered possession but no amenities such as potable water supply; connectivity of 24 meter road with Gurgaon road; high tension electricity line was not shifted from residential plots; electricity poles existed in the middle of the road; sewerage system was not working properly and was not connected to any treatment plant; parks not developed, community centre not constructed.  Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      In reply, HUDA pleaded that before offer of possession, report was sought from the office of Executive Engineer (Civil and Electrical) and it is only after making provision of amenities that possession was offered.  It was further submitted that no complaint whatsoever was ever raised by the complainant in writing or orally about the lack of development or non availability of any particular amenity before taking possession of the plot.   

4.      Learned counsel for HUDA has placed on record report (Annexure A-1) submitted by Executive Engineer to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh, certifying that the development works such as water supply, sewerage and roads have been completed. Another report (Annexure A-2) of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division dated January 12^th, 2012 has also been relied upon wherein it is stated that electrification work, that is, LT line has already been provided in front of 949 plots and lines have been energized.  In both the reports, plot numbers of different sizes, that is, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14 Marlas and 1 Kanal have been given.  In view of the reports of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Rohtak plot of complainant falls within the developed areas. Report of Local Commissioner which is totally vague and pointing out that 24 meter road has not connected with Gurgaon road and high tension wire exists in the area of Sector etc cannot have any relevance because basic amenities have been provided before offering possession except certain development works such as commercial establishments etc which can only be developed after inhabitants starts living there.  This Commission feels that since basic amenities have been provided, District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.    

5.      In view of above, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

UK