Haryana

StateCommission

RP/89/2015

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Shanti Devi - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the petitioners

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.89 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 19.10.2015

Date of Decision: 24.04.2017

 

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal.

                                                            .….Appellants

Versus

Smt. Shanti Devi W/oShri Suresh Kumar R/o H.No.867/18, Jakholi Adda, Shora Kothi, Kaithal Tehsil and District Kaithal.

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

     Respondent filed complaint in the year 2000 which was allowed on 31.12.2001 with following observation:-

“So, the respondents are directed to offer the possession of the booth in question to the complainant within a period of one months from the date of order. The respondents are also directed to develop the undeveloped land near booth No.14 (South) Mandi township, Kaithal as per drawing No.D.T.D. (A) 1511/69.  The complainant is also entitled to get the interest @  12 % P.A. on the amount deposited by her at the  time of bid till the date of delivery of possession of the booth in question. Rs.1000/- is awarded as compensation including the cost to the complainant.  Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable.”

Appeal and revision filed against that order were dismissed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (In short “State Commission”) as well as Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (In short “National Commission”).

2.                Thereafter complainant filed application for compliance of order dated 31.12.2001.  Instead of complying that order revisionist filed  objections alleging that the complainant did not deposit amount in time.  He was liable to pay Rs.4,14,045/- that is why No Due Certificate (NDC) could not be issued.

3.               After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In short “District Forum”) dismissed complaint vide impugned order dated 24.04.2015.

4.                Feeling aggrieved  therefrom JD has preferred this revision. Arguments heard. File perused.

5.               Learned counsel for revisionist vehemently argued that after order of District forum, letter No.5084 dated 09.08.2010 was issued to her to take possession.  A cheque of Rs.15,030/- was also sent to her. As per order of State Commission she did not deposit Rs.4,14,045/- pertaining to installments of this booth, so she was not entitled to get NDC.

6.               This argument is of no avail.  As per letter dated 11.07.1994 of booth was allotted to her having value of Rs.1,73,500/-.  25% amount of that price i.e Rs.43,375/- were deposited by her at the time of auction.  She was afforded an opportunity to pay Rs.1,30,125/- in lumpsum within 60 days without any interest or 10 half yearly installments alongwith interest @ 15% per annum.  On 27.06.2002 she deposited Rs.89098/- with JDs. On that date, balance was shown as Rs.41,027/-.  As per order dated 31.12.2001, interest @ 12% p.a. was to be given to complainant on the amount deposited at the time of bid.  If we calculate interest at this amount till the delivery of possession it is more than 80,000/-.  If that amount is adjusted,  it is to be presumed that nothing was due towards her at the time of delivery of possession. It is well settled proposition of law and as per instructions issued by HUDA time and again department cannot charge interest on the amount  due or penalty if the possession is not delivered within time. As per facts mentioned above, revisionist did not deliver possession up-to 16 years, so she was not liable to pay any interest on the amount due. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect and there is no illegality in the impugned order, so the same cannot be disturbed.  Hence revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

April 24, 2017             Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                       Member                                        Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                                       Addl.Bench               

S.K.