Haryana

StateCommission

A/1029/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY KAUSHIK

10 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1029 of 2015

Date of Institution:        02.12.2015

Date of Decision :         10.05.2016

 

The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA Complex, Sector-13, Hisar.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Sunder Singh s/o Sh. Sohan Lal, Resident of House No.103, Sector 15-A, Hisar.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Radhe Shyam, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Party’s appeal is directed against the order dated September 17^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Sunder Singh-complainant/respondent was accepted directing the appellant/opposite party as under:-

“…we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and the opposite party is directed not to recover the dues, if any, as on the date of the issue of said letter dated 25.11.2010, from the complainant. Further it is ordered, if the dues are outstanding against the said plot in question as on the date of issue of letter dated 25.11.2010, the said amount will be recovered by the opposite party from the salary of the concerned officials who issued the letter dated 25.11.2010. Further it is made clear that the complainant shall be liable to pay the dues accrued subsequently the issue of letter dated 25.11.2010, to the opposite party.”

2.      The respondent purchased plot No.1857 located in Sector 14-P, Hisar, vide re-allotment letter No.21942 dated 21.08.1986 (Annexure-1) issued by Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Hisar. He was informed vide letter No.25376 dated 25.11.2010 that nothing was due towards the above said plot. The respondent applied for sanction of the building plan and deposited Rs.15,000/- as extension fee on 28.12.2012 (Annexure-3). The building plan was sanctioned vide letter dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure-4). Vide letter dated 28.06.2013, the complainant applied for occupation certificate. The HUDA raised demand of Rs.3,47,340/- vide letter dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure-6), however, later on the demand of Rs.3,39,714/- was made. By writing letter dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure-8), demanding the account statement and being not supplied, the complainant sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure-9) but to no effect. The information was supplied during the proceedings of First Appeal before the authorities of RTI vide letter dated 29.11.2013 (Ananexure-11). The respondent learnt that the amount of Rs.3,46,726/- was demanded. The respondent approached the appellant to waive of the demand so raised and to issue Occupation Certificate but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The appellant/opposite party in its reply pleaded that as per HUDA rules, Occupation Certificate could not be issued till the payment of all the outstanding dues in respect of the plot in question. It was stated that a sum of Rs.1,18,023/- (principal outstanding extension fee)+ Rs.62,624/- (outstanding extension surcharge) i.e. total Rs.1,80,647/- was due as on 28.12.2012, whereas the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- on 28.12.2012 and the same was adjusted towards outstanding surcharge.  The amount of Rs.1,34,993/- (principal outstanding extension fee)+ Rs.64,189/- (surcharge) i.e. total extension Rs.1,99,072/-= was due on 03.01.2013, whereas the complainant deposited Rs.14,000/- on 3.1.2013 which was adjusted in the outstanding surcharge.  Thus, as on 31.07.2014, a sum of Rs.4,96,138/- was outstanding towards the complainant in respect of the plot in question.

4.      Vide impugned order the District Forum accepted complaint and directed the appellant/opposite party as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as on 25.11.2010 the following amount was due towards the plot of the respondent:-

          a)      Additional price of plot (E.C.Amount) with interest=4,562/-

          b)      Price of increased area (with interest)                = 10,939/-

          c)      Due installments (with interest)                        =20,089/-

          d)      Extension fee (with surcharge)                        =1,21,426/-

                                                Total:                                      =1,66,506/-

6.      Indisputably, plot No.1857-P, Sector 14, Hisar was allotted to the complainant on 21.08.1986. The possession was offered on 01.05.1998. Though at the time of allotment, the area of the plot was 292.65 square meters but at the time of physical possession an area of 306.55 square meters plot was handed over. Thus, the complainant was liable to pay the price of extra land, that is, 13.90 square meters. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, construction on the plot was to be completed within two years from the date of offer of possession. So, the complainant was to complete the construction up to 01.05.2000, which he did not do. That being so, the complainant was liable to pay extension fee etc. as per HUDA rules.  

7.      As per the account statement (Exhibit R-1) a sum of Rs.4,96,138/- was outstanding as dues towards the plot of the complainant and the same was to increase with the passage of time by adding interest and surcharge etcetera. The complainant cannot take the benefit of wrong calculation carried out by some official of HUDA. It is a matter of statement of account which the complainant has not been able to dispute. Merely because some official of HUDA, whether intentionally or un-intentionally, gave ‘No Due Certificate’, the same cannot absolve the complainant from paying the dues payable by him. The District Forum by allowing the complaint has not given any reason as to why the complainant has been absolved from the liability to clear the arrears. So, the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.      In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

 

Announced: 10.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL