Haryana

StateCommission

A/273/2016

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATYA PAL SANGWAN - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY KAUSHIK

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     273 of 2016

Date of Institution:     01.04.2016

Date of Decision :     15.12.2016

 

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

2.     The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Satya Pal Sangwan s/o Sh. Kundan Singh, Resident of House No.1301, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Sunidh Kashyap, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 16^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.164 of 2015.

2.                Chanderpati wife of complainant-Satya Pal Sangwan (respondent herein) was allotted Plot No.2473, measuring 211.200 square meters, located in Sector 21-III, Panchkula, vide allotment letter dated 27^th April, 2004 (Annexure C-3) issued by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)-Opposite Parties/appellants, at a tentative price of Rs.9,09,427/-. She deposited Rs.89,996/- alongwith Application Form (Annexure C-2) and Rs.1,37,361/- within 30 days after issuing the allotment letter. Thereafter, the plot was got transferred in the name of the complainant vide letter dated 25^th May, 2004 (Annexure C-7) and re-allotment letter (Annexure C-13) was issued. The complainant paid the entire price of the plot to the HUDA but possession was not delivered. The complainant-respondent applied for possession of the plot on 24^th August, 2014, however, HUDA stated that the demarcation plan was under approval in the office of Town and Country Planning Department and it was approved on 8^th April, 2015. Thereafter, possession was offered by HUDA-opposite parties. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA for the delay in delivering possession, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) seeking compensation.

3.                The opposite parties-HUDA, contested complaint raising plea that the plot was re-allotted to the complainant on 24^th December, 2004 whereas the complaint was filed in 2015. So, the complaint was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 24A of the Act, 1986. Denying the other allegations, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint issuing direction to HUDA as under:-

“1.     To pay the interest @ 12% on the amount deposited by the complainant till delivery of possession from the date of deposit of the amount.

2.      To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for harassment, mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

3.      To make the payment of Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.”

5.                Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties contended that the plot was re-allotted to the complainant in 2004 and possession was sought by him in 2014. So, the complaint was barred by limitation. It was further argued that the revised demarcation plan was approved by the Town and Country Planning Department on 8^th April, 2015 and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of HUDA.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, the possession was offered by HUDA to the complainant in 2015 and therefore cause of action arose thereupon, thus the complaint was maintainable. Besides, lay out plan being not approved by District Town and Country Planning department, the opposite parties-HUDA did not offer possession to the complainant. The fact that the plot was allotted to the complainant in 2004 and the demarcation and lay out plan was not approved by the Town and Country Planning Department, which is also a functionary of the government; the complainant could not be blamed for any delay. It cannot be lost sight that from the period 2004 to 2016, there is steep escalation in the cost of construction. So, looking to that aspect, the District Forum was justified in granting interest and compensation to the complainant for delayed offer of possession. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

7.                In view of the above, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

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

 

Announced 15.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL