Haryana

StateCommission

A/47/2020

HSVP - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHASHI GOYAL - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH SHARMA

15 Oct 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    47 of 2020

Date of Institution:  20.01.2020

Date of Decision:   15.10.2020

 

1.      Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (erstwhile Haryana Urban Development Authority) through its Chief Administrator, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

2.      Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (erstwhile Haryana Urban Development Authority) Rohtak.

 

3.      Estate Officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (erstwhile Haryana Urban Development Authority) Bahadurgarh.

 

 

 

Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Shashi Goyal w/o D.P. Goel, resident of # 2258, Sector 1, Rohtak.

 

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the appellants.

                    

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons as specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      The opposite parties have filed the present appeal for challenging the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar, whereby complaint filed by complainant Shashi Goyal, was disposed of by awarding the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. She was also held entitled to Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally. The opposite parties were also directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount so deposited by the complainant for the period from 07.09.2004 to 31.12.2006 as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter (Exhibit P-1), whereas, the opposite parties had charged interest @ 18% per annum in case of delayed payment of installments by the complainant. However, from the period starting 2007 till the offer of possession, the opposite parties were to pay interest @ 9% per annum as per policy (Exhibit R-2) on the amount so deposited by the complainant from the date of their deposits.

3.      According to the complainant, she was allotted plot No.2253P, Sector 2, Bahadurgarh by the opposite parties vide memo No.8027 dated 7.9.2001 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. The complainant had paid full amount of the plot in question but the possession thereof was not offered by the opposite parties despite several requests and e-mails. However, the opposite parties offered the possession of plot vide letter dated 19.11.2016 but failed to refund the interest on deposited amount till date of offer of possession. The opposite parties however demanded Rs.4,96,905/- from the complainant on account of enhanced price vide memo dated 31.03.2018 whereas the possession of the plot was to be offered within three years from the date of allotment. As per the policy dated 25.01.2007 circulated by the opposite parties, the complainant applied for refund of interest on the deposited amount but the opposite parties refused to refund the interest on one pretext or the other. The opposite parties were also at fault in not providing development facilities in the area till 2017. Non-providing of development facilities and non-refund of interest on deposited amount, amounted to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly, complaint was filed by the complainant seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the interest on deposited amount from the date of each deposit till 31.03.2018 along with other interests, compensation and litigation expenses.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite parties filed their written version. It admitted that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant on 07.09.2001. The grievance of the complainant was not covered under the HUDA policy as the delay interest policy was circulated on 25.01.2007 whereas the complainant was allotted the plot on 07.09.2001. As such, the complainant was not entitled for relief from the opposite parties. However, it was pleaded that the plot was allotted vide office memo dated 19.11.2016 without any interest on remaining payment after the completion of development work in the sector. The possession could not be given to the allottee due to the reason that side road could not be constructed at site due to adjacent land, which was under acquisition. The complainant was not the allottee of the opposite parties and thus did not come under the category of ‘consumer’. However, it was denied that the opposite parties did not offer possession to the allottee within the stipulated period after completion of development work. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

5.      In support of her case, the complainant tendered affidavit (Exhibit PW-1/A) and documents (Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-7) whereas the opposite parties tendered affidavit (Exhibit RW-1/A) and documents (Exhibit R-1 to Exhibit R-3).

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum disposed of the complaint in favour of the complainant, as mentioned above.

7.      Learned counsel for the opposite parties-appellants has submitted that the allotment in question was made on certain terms and conditions and the grievance of the complainant was not covered under the HUDA policy as the plot under reference was allotted on 07.09.2001 whereas the policy for delayed interest was circulated on 25.01.2007. Hence, the complaint was not entitled for any interest on account of delay in offering the possession to the complainant.

8.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the allotment of the plot in question was made in favour of the complainant on 07.09.2001. The possession of the same was to be offered within 90 days as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The possession of the plot was offered to the complainant vide memo dated 19.11.2016 as the basic amenities were not available at the site. As such, the possession of the plot was offered on 19.11.2016, which was after the expiry of three years’ period from the date of allotment. The opposite parties had offered the possession to the complainant on 19.11.2016 as in the year, 2014, the development work had not been completed. Admittedly, the possession of the plot had not been offered within three years of the allotment. In such a case, the opposite parties were liable to pay interest @ 9% per month on the amount deposited by the complainant after the expiry of three years till offer of possession. By not giving physical possession/offer of possession to the complainant despite the fact that the allotment was made about 15 years back i.e. in the year 2001, it was a case of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant was deprived of her right to construct the house. As such, learned District Forum had rightly awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment, which she had to suffer despite the fact that full payment of the plot was made within the stipulated period as per allotment letter.

9.      In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum. The appeal is resultantly dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, in accordance with law.

 

Announced 15.10.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.