Haryana

Kurukshetra

60/2018

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

Shyam Singh

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.60 of 2018.

Date of instt: 20.3.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 26.08.2019.

 

Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Krishan, resident of village and post office Siwaha, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                                …..Complainant.

                        Vs.

 

1. State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra.
2. Chief Administrative, Haryana Urban Development Authority, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula.
3. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra.

 

……Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

                       

Present:     Sh. S.S. Chhokar, Advocate for complainant.

 Sh. Vikrant Kundu, Advocate for opposite parties.

         

ORDER

                     This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gurmeet Singh against State of Haryana and Chief Administrative, HUDA etc., the opposite parties.

2.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is 100% blind. The op no.2 invited applications for allotment of free residential plots in Sector-1 (Part) Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and the booking was commenced w.e.f. 21.9.2016 and the closing date was fixed as 21.10.2016. It is further averred that there were various categories of the plots mentioned in table-1 of the brochure/ hand book in which one plot was reserved for blind category of 6 marlas. The complainant also got information from his office about this advertisement and he applied for the plot in category of blind. As the complainant is 100% blind, hence he was not able to read out the hand book himself and he was dependent upon the others and complainant was informed that the payments of the plot are to be made within a period of 10 years. It is further averred that complainant belongs to a very poor family and the other family members of complainant are also dependent upon complainant for their bread and butter and hence he borrowed a loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce and made the payment of Rs.1,69,000/- alongwith application form. It is further averred that ops no.2 and 3 after completing the process issued allotment letter to complainant vide memo no.Z0004/E0013/UE042/GALOT/0000000096 dated 12.9.2017 and as per this allotment complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,52,875/- within 30 days i.e. on or before 11.10.2017 and thereafter the balance amount of Rs.12,65,625/- up to 10.11.2017. The complainant was shocked to see these directions in the allotment letter because complainant was told that the installments are to be paid within a period of 10 years. It is further averred that as complainant belongs to very poor family, it was not possible for him to pay so much huge amount in a very short period and complainant contacted op no.3 and requested to extend the period of making of the payment, but op no.3 flatly refused to extend the period of payment. But op no.3 assured to complainant that if he makes a representation to surrender the plot, then the amount of Rs.1,69,000/- deposited alongwith application form will be refunded to him within a period of one month and on asking of op no.3, complainant surrendered the plot no.139 at Pehowa on 10.10.2017 with the request to refund the amount of earnest money. It is further averred that complainant waited for the payment for one month as was assured by op no.3 but he did not receive any payment and then he contacted op no.3 in the last week of November, 2017 and then op no.3 directed to complainant to wait for 15 days more. Op no.3 also told to the complainant that he has sought approval from op no.2. The complainant again contacted op no.3 in the last week of December, 2017 and then op no.3 flatly refused to refund the amount of earnest money to the complainant. That aggrieved from the account of the ops, the complainant served a legal notice to the ops on 24.1.2018 and the ops have submitted false and frivolous reply and flatly refused to refund the earnest money to the complainant. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to refund an amount of Rs.1,69,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of receipt of payment till actual realization, to further pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages suffered by complainant on account of loss of livelihood, harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service and further to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops no.2 and 3 filed written statement submitting therein that complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts, as such he is not entitled for any discretionary relief. In the present complaint, the complainant has requested for refund of earnest money deposited under New Pehowa Scheme floated in the month of November, 2016 for Sector-1 (Part) Urban Estate, Pehowa and the draw for the same was held on 6.3.2017. As per clause no.2 of the terms and conditions of the allotment of new scheme:

                “The successful allottee shall deposit 15% of the tentative sale price, or such other amount which together with the earnest money is equal to at least 25% of the tentative sale price of the site, within 30 days of issuance of allotment letter. The remaining 75% of the tentative sale price shall be paid in lump-sum within 60 days of issuance of allotment letter, failing which this allotment shall stand cancelled without any notice and the earnest money paid with the application shall stand forfeited, against which applicant shall have no claim for the damages.”

                It is further submitted that there was no provision for surrender of plot laid down in the broacher, so this office sought the necessary directions/ guidelines from the competent authority regarding refusal/ surrender of allotment of plot. In that reference, the Higher Authority issued the instructions vide his office memo no.HUDA/CCF/AO-Cash/2017/226903 dated 30.11.2017  which are as under:-

                “Whenever the date of issuance of allotment letter, the concerned Estate Officer, HUDA will refund the amount after deducting 10% of the total consideration money including interest and penalty if any due upto the date of application for such surrender. However, no interest shall be payable on such amount to be refundable.”

                It is further submitted that as per above instructions, the earnest money deposited i.e. 10% of the total consideration money of the plot cannot be refunded. It is further submitted that there were various categories of plots mentioned in table-1 of the broacher in which one plot was reserved for blind category in 6 marla plots and the complainant applied for the same. The complainant has never contacted this office in this regard at the time of applying/ submission of application for allotment of plot or before draw of lots. However, it is submitted that the complainant is well educated and can read and write. He has submitted his affidavit and application etc. under his signature in English and using e-mail also as per document submitted by him and as such he can read the broacher himself. However, the ops are not responsible for such excuse, because if complainant is applying for allotment of plot, he should be fully aware with the terms and conditions of the broacher before applying the same and when he is applying for the same and spending Rs.1,69,000/-, it means that he is fully aware about the terms and conditions. Further, when the complainant can read the terms and conditions of allotment, then he is able to read the terms and conditions of broacher also. It is further submitted that ops have no concern with the personal life of the complainant and the ops can only work on terms and conditions of broacher vide which the plots were floated and also as per instructions issued by the higher authority from time to time. The ops cannot violate the terms and conditions of the broacher and have never told to the complainant that the installment is to be deposited within a period of 10 years. Hence, the complainant is making false story to surrender the plot and to refund the earnest money, which cannot be refunded to him as per HSVP policy and also as per terms and conditions of broacher. The ops have never given any assurance to the complainant regarding refund of earnest money. Other preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, estopopal, jurisdiction, cause of action, no deficiency in service and non joinder and mis joinder of necessary party have also been taken, the other contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 suffered a statement that written statement on behalf of ops no.2 and 3 be also read on behalf of op no.1.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             The counsel for the complainant contended that complainant is 100% Blind and applied for allotment for plot to the OPs after depositing the earnest money i.e Rs.1,69,000/-. After completing process Ops issued allotment letter to the complainant dated 12.09.2017 as per allotment letter the complaint was directed to pay amount of Rs.2,52,875/- within 30 days or before 11.10.2017 and thereafter the balance amount of Rs. 12,65,625/- up to 10.11.2017. The counsel of the complainant again contended that complainant belongs to a poor family and he requested to the OPs to extend the date of payment but Ops refused to extend the date of payment. On 10.10.2017 complainant has requested to surrender plot No.139 situated at Pehowa and also requested to refund the earnest money. The counsel of the complainant again contended that the Ops have not refunded the earnest money. This is a great deficiency in services on the part of Ops.

8.             The counsel of the Ops argued that it is admitted fact that complainant had applied for allotment of plot under Blind Reservation Quota. But after allotment complainant could not deposited the amount as per letter and on 10.10.2017 he applied to surrender the plot and refund the earnest money. The counsel of the Ops again contended that there is specific provision in the voucher i.e Ex.R-3 in which clearly mentioned the payment terms i.e as follows:-

                “The successful allottee shall deposit 15% of the tentative sale price, or such other amount which together with the earnest money is equal to at least 25% of the tentative sale price of the site, within 30 days of issuance of allotment letter. The remaining 75% of the tentative sale price shall be paid in lump-sum within 60 days of issuance of allotment letter failing which this allotment shall stand cancelled without any notice and the earnest money, paid with the application shall stand forfeited, against which applicant shall have no claim for the damages.” So, there is no deficiency in services on the part of us.

8.             The counsel of Ops also argued that the complainant shows his cleverness in filing this case. He is educated person. Counsel of the complainant again contended that Ex.C-6 the complainant has done signatures in English but in complainant Gurmeet Singh put thumb impression in complaint to show himself as illiterate.

9.             On perusal of the file, it is clear that the complainant has deposited the earnest money to the Ops as Blind Reservation Quota but the complainant could not deposited the amount demanded by the Ops after allotment. Ex.R-3 clearly shows that if the payment not deposited by the allottee the allotment shall stand cancelled without any notice and the earnest money paid with the application shall stands forfeited. So, there is no deficiency in services on the part of OPs.

10.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:26.08.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.