Haryana

StateCommission

A/7/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT.SANTOSH & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

RAMAN GAUR

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       07 of 2015

Date of Institution:     02.01.2015

Date of Decision :     06.11.2015

 

1.     Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate

Officer, Kaithal.

2.      Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Santosh w/o late Shri Rajender Parshad Mittal

2.      Poonam Mittal d/o late Shri Rajender Parshad Mittal

3.      Monika Goyal d/o late Sh. Rajender Parshad Mittal

4.      Sudhir Mohan Mittal s/o late Sh. Rajender Parshad Mittal

All Residents of House No.208, Sector 19-1, Urban Estate, Kaithal, Haryana.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               None for appellants.

                             Shri R.S. Badhran, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘HUDA’), through its Estate Officer, Kaithal and another/opposite parties are in appeal against the order dated March 3^rd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) vide which complaint No.78 of 2011 was allowed directing appellants-opposite parties as under:-

“…..we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to set-aside the resumption order and restore the plot bearing No.208, Sector 19-1, HUDA, Kaithal of complainant and issue completion certificate to the complainants without any outstanding charges. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of litigation charges.”

2.      Rajinder Parshad Mittal (since deceased) - husband of Santosh -complainant/respondent No.1 and father of complainants/ respondents No.2 to 4 was allotted plot No.208, admeasuring 6 Marlas in Sector 19-A, HUDA, Kaithal, vide allotment letter (Annexure C-1) No.2012 dated 05.09.1995 for a tentative price of Rs.1,27,024/-. The complainant started construction after getting the plan sanctioned and also took water connection.. The Junior Engineer of HUDA inspected the house and issued completion certificate on May 12^th, 1998. However, the opposite parties after issuing notices Annexure R-2 to R-5, resumed the plot vide Resumption Office Order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure R-6) on the ground that the complainant failed in making the payment of the outstanding dues in time. The complainant filed appeal before Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. While allowing the said appeal, the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, vide order dated May 15^th, 2003 directed the parties as under:-

“……Hence, the resumption order is set aside and the plot is restored to the appellant. The drafts deposited by the appellant be sent to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal and the appellant will be asked to deposit the remaining amount alongwith interest if any as per HUDA policy. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal is directed to calculate all outstanding dues including extension fee as per policy of HUDA and intimate to the appellant within 10 days. The appellant will deposit the dues as demanded within 30 days from the date of issue of demand letter by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal. If the appellant fails to comply with the above directions then the order of resumption will come into force without any notice to the appellants. This appeal is decided accordingly.”

3.      The complainant filed complaint averring that the HUDA did not provide any calculation showing the amount due despite repeated requests and also did not issue completion certificate of the house in question, rather, vide letter No.6815 dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure R-12) directed the complainant to appear before Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal, alongwith all the relevant documents pertaining to the plot in question and they also threatened to resume the plot in question stating that the complainant failed to comply with the directions issued in the resumption letter (Annexure R-6).

4.      The opposite parties/HUDA contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that a letter bearing memo No.2244 was issued to the complainant on July 9^th, 2003 intimating the outstanding amount but the complainant failed to pay the same. Thus, the resumption order stood revived in view of the decision rendered by Administrator in appeal. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint issuing directions as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order. Hence the instant appeal.

6.      It is worth mentioning here that even Administrator, HUDA while deciding appeal vide order Annexure R-8 observed that a sum of Rs.1,37,667/- was outstanding against the plot at the time of resumption and the complainant had deposited Rs.1,50,000/-. The relevant part of the order is as under:-

“A perusal of record reveals that an amount of Rs.1,37,667/- was outstanding amount against the plot at the time of resumption and the appellant has paid Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, intention of appellant seems to be good.”

7.      It was also observed by the Administrator that the Estate Officer, HUDA would calculate the outstanding amount, if any, including the extension fee etcetera and intimate the complainants within ten days and the complainant was required to pay the said amount within 30 days thereof. No amount was stated to have been claimed by HUDA from the complainant till 2009 when vide letter Annexure C/7, the complainant was asked to remain to be present in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal with all documents concerning the plot and on appearance it was disclosed that since the complainant had not deposited the due amount, therefore, resumption stood restored.

8.      Surprisingly, though the opposite parties/HUDA raised plea in reply that letter was written on July 9^th, 2003 giving details of outstanding amount, however, neither the letter has been placed on the file nor any postal receipt having sent the said letter was produced.  Therefore, no negligence could be attributed to the complainant for not depositing the amount due towards the plot in question. Thus, the action of the HUDA/opposite parties treating the plot still under resumption by virtue of default clause mentioned in the order Annexure R-8 cannot sustain and the order of the District Forum does not require any interference.

9.      In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.7500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants/respondents against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 06.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL