Haryana

StateCommission

A/1052/2014

Haryana Urban Development - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.B. Yadav - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.1052 of 2014

                                              Date of Institution: 17.11.2014                 Date of Decision: 29.11.2016

 

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Administrator (Exercising the power of Chief Administrator, HUDA), Sector-14, HUDA complex, Gurgaon.
2. Estate Officer-I, HUDA, Sector-14, HUDA Complex, Gurgaon.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

R.B. Yadav S/o Sh.Nand Lal Yadav R/o Sector 15 Part I Gurgaon, Postal address SCO No.5, Old Judicial Complex, Gurgaon Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon.

          …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                      

For the parties:  None for the appellants.

                             Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased plot No.5 at old judicial complex, Gurgaon on 20.09.2001 for his livelihood.  He paid Rs.6,34,000/- at the time of auction and Rs.9,51,000/- were deposited when letter of allotment dated 20.09.2001 was issued. He was liable to pay remaining amount of Rs.47,55,000/- by way of eight half early installments.  O.Ps. issued letter dated 18.01.2002 about offer of possession but that was only on the papers.  because huge tree was standing on the site and he requested to remove the same.  On 20.08.2002 he deposited Rs.4750/- as ‘malba’ fees.  On 30.05.2003 he deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and requested Estate Oficer to deliver possession, but, to no avail. Vide order dated 13.09.2006 Administrator told that tree was  removed and offer of possession be presumed from 25.10.2002.  Possession could not be presumed from the previous date and it should be treated from 13.09.2006.  O.Ps. charged Rs.18,00,000/- in excess from him and it amounted to unfair trade practice.  He filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court, but, was directed to approach appropriate forum. He be granted the following relief:-

“a.     to pass an order to treat the date of   passing of order i.e. 13.09.2006 as the date of offering possession as this order could not have implemented with retrospective effect.

b.      To refund unauthorized money (as   mentioned under para No.7 above) with  18% interest collected by the respondent after keeping the date of giving possession as mentioned above and to charge the simple interest as stipulated in the letter of allotment.

c.       To pay compensation to this tune of    Rs.1,00,000/- the complaint for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and also pay the cost of litigations.”

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments and raised objections about jurisdiction, concealing true facts, maintainability of complaint etc. and requested to dismiss the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that plot was purchased by complainant, but, alleged that while deciding appeal filed by complainant, Administrator HUDA ordered to consider 25.10.2002 as date of offer of possession and not 20.09.2001. Amount payable by him  was calculated accordingly because he gave undertaking to withdraw complaint filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”). The said order was very much legal and binding upon the complainant. The interest was calculated from the date of offer of possession.  The area was fully developed and false story was concocted by him.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Forum opined as under:-

“Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of excess amount. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.”

4.       Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of only respondents-complainants counsel were heard because the counsel for the appellants is not coming since so many dates. After filing of  appeal most of the times proxy counsel appeared for the main counsel of appellants. Nobody appeared on behalf of the  appellants on 07.04.2016, 12.05.2016, 06.09.2016, 24.10.2016, 04.10.2016  and today. This appeal is pending since the year 2014. File perused.

6.      It is specifically opined by learned District Forum that the date of offer of possession be presumed from 19.06.2003 because previously tree was standing on this plot and letter dated 18.01.2002 was only the paper possession. Thereafter complainant wrote so many letters to the concerned authorities to remove the tree from the site so that proper possession can be taken and he could start construction.  He also deposited Rs.4,000/- for removing tree.  In office note dated 17.01.2003 of appellants-O.ps. it is clear that the same was removed at that time. It shows that before 17.01.2003 tree was standing there and complainant was not able to take possession of that plot.  O.Ps. cannot get out of their own documents. From the perusal of letter dated 14.03.2002 Ex.C-4 it is clear that Estate Officer HUDA asked Execution Engineer  Horticulture Division to remove the tree.  All these facts clearly shows that there was no occasion for the complainant to take possession before the said date. So the findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification.

 

November  29th, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.