Haryana

StateCommission

A/836/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHARDA GARG - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No: 836 of 2015

First Appeal No:2143 of 2003

Date of Institution: 11.09.2003/15.09.2015

Date of Decision: 01.04.2016

 

The Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate Officer, Hisar.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Smt. Sharda Garg w/o Sh. S.N. Garg, Resident of House No.211, Sector 15A, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Yashpal Singh Rana, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sharda Garg-Complainant (respondent herein), applied for allotment of a residential plot to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). She was allotted a residential plot No.211, admeasuring 350 Square yards, in Sector 15A, Hisar, for a tentative consideration price of Rs.49,000/-, vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.5423 dated 14^th September, 1982. She paid Rs.5428/- alongwith the application and Rs.6822/- within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The remaining amount of Rs.36,750/- was to be paid in instalments alongwith interest @ 10% per annum on the balance amount. The parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. Since the price of the plot was tentative, the complainant was required to pay any enhancement in the cost of plot within thirty days of the demand made. The complainant failed to deposit the enhanced price of the plot, that is, Rs.20,786.50 inspite of notices issued by HUDA under Sections 17(1) and 17(2) of the HUDA Act. The Estate Officer, HUDA imposed penalty of Rs.2078/- vide letter dated 27^th August, 1992. The HUDA issued notice No.18126 dated 20^th November, 1992 under Section 17(3) for resumption of the plot. The complainant filed appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. By accepting the appeal, the Estate Officer, HUDA waived off the penalty, however the complainant was directed to pay interest on the enhanced price.

2.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’), averring that she never received any Demand Notice from the HUDA to pay the enhanced price of the plot prior to notice No.18126 dated 20^th November, 1992 and therefore she was not liable to pay interest on the enhanced price of the plot.

3.      Vide order dated May 13^th, 2003, the District Forum allowed complaint restraining the HUDA from charging interest on the enhanced price of the plot and directed to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

4.      First Appeal No.2143 of 2003 filed by HUDA before this Commission was allowed vide order dated February 1^st, 2010 and complaint was dismissed holding the same to be barred by limitation.

5.      The complainant filed Revision Petition No.2711 of 2014 before Hon’ble National Commission whereby vide order dated August 19^th, 2015 it was held that the complaint was well within limitation and the order of this Commission was set aside. The case was remitted to this Commission for deciding it afresh on merits.

6.      The only plea raised by the complainant was that since she did not receive any notice with respect to the demand of enhanced cost of the plot, therefore, she was not liable to pay any interest.

7.      On the other hand, the opposite party/HUDA has placed on the file demand notices viz No.1158 dated 30.01.1990; No.17381 dated 25.12.1991 and No.3335 dated 09.03.1992 issued to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that she learnt about the enhanced price of the plot only when she received resumption notice No.18126 dated 20.11.1992.

8.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the HUDA has been able to prove that the demand notices were sent to the complainant to pay the enhanced price of the plot. Perusal of demand notices dated 30.01.1990, 25.12.1991 and 09.03.1992 clearly prove that HUDA had sent demand notices for enhanced price. Undisputedly, the complainant has not paid enhanced price. So, the complainant is liable to pay interest on the enhanced price of the plot.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.

9.      Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

 

Announced 01.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL