Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 137
Instituted on : 23.02.2021
Decided on : 05.04.2024
Sh.Ashish Kumar Barak s/o Sh. Anil Kumar Barak Posted at R/o Air Force Station Mohanbaari, Dibrugarh, Assam
Through Attorney holder
Sh.Anil Kumar Barak s/o Sh. Mahabir Singh Barak R/o H.No.1707, Sector-3, Rohtak(Haryana)-124001.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- The Chief Administrator, Haryana ShahariVikasPradhikaran(HSVP)[Earlier Known asHaryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA)] Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.
- The Administrator Haryana ShahariVikasPradhikaran(HSVP) [Earlier Known as Haryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA)] HSVP Office complex, Sector-3, Rohtak Haryana-124001.
- The Estate Officer,Haryana ShahariVikasPradhikaran(HSVP) [Earlier Known as Haryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA)] HSVP Office Complex, Sector-3, Rohtak Haryana-124001
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Parveen Sehgal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.K.Luthra,Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are thatson of the complainant had booked a plot in the project of opposite party No.1 vide application registration no.UE018/21P/377 for the allotment of a residential plot in Sector-21P at Urban Estate Rohtak. Opposite party No.3 allotted a residential plot No.176 vide allotment letter no.ZO005/EO010/UE018/GALOT/0000000092/11584 dated 14.12.2017. The tentative price of the plot was Rs.1992000/- out of which the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1369000/- to the opposite party no.3 till June–July 2019. Thereafter when the complainant tried to deposit the balance amount through the online server of opposite party, it shown that the allotment is cancelled without showing or assigning any reason. . The son of complainant never received any notice or information about the alleged cancellation of plot. Complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party no.3 dated 07.08.2019 for revocation of the alleged unilateral cancellation of plot and the attorney of complainant visited the office of the opposite party again on 14.02.2020 and made a representation to revoke the cancellation and submitted that the complainant is ready and willing to pay the balance amount with penalty whatsoever but to no effect. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.03.2020 and thereafter the opposite party sent a letter dated 05.03.2020 bearing memo no.993 to theson of complainant informing him that his plot was cancelled which is the afterthought of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to revocate the alleged cancellation of plot and re-allot the same in favour of complainant, to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1369000/- alongiwth interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of booking till the final realisation of amount, to pay Rs.200000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.50000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted thatit is admitted that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1369000/- out of the total tentative price of Rs.1992000/- but as per the terms and conditions the complainant had to deposit the total cost of the plot upto 10.02.2018. hence the respondent has rightly cancelled the allotment of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of HSVP. Respondent has rightly cancelled the allotment of the complainant as he has failed to deposit the total cost of the plot in the prescribed period i.e. upto 10,.02.2018 as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. So the question of giving any notice or assigning any opportunity does not arise. The allotment of plot has been cancelled due to non deposition of total amount within stipulated period. Hence there is no illegality on the part of the respondents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed his evidence on dated 04.03.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter failed to conclude his evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and the evidence of opposite parties was closed by the order dated 21.02.2023 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Through this complaint complainant has demanded revocation of cancellation of plot and to refund the amount of Rs.1369000/- alongwith interest @ 24% and compensation on account of harassment and litigationexpenses. During the pendency of the complaint the respondent officials paid an amountof Rs.1189000/- to the complainant through NEFT on dated 22.06.2023. In this case the allotment letter Ex.C1 has been issued on dated 14.12.2017 and as perthe condition no.4 of this letter it is submitted that: “You shall deposit an amount of Rs.318000/- at the authorized bank and duly credited to HUDA account within a period of 30 days i.e. on or before Dt.11.01.2018 from the date of issue of this allotment letter which together with an amount of Rs.180,000.00 paid by you along with your application form as earnest money, will constitute 25% of the total tentative price. Further, the balance amount i.e. 1,494,000.00 of the tentative price of the plot/building shall be paid in lump-sum without interest within 60 days i.e. on or before Dt. 10/02/2018 from the date of issue of the allotment letter, falling which this allotment shall stand cancelled without any notice and earnest money deposited by you, shall stand forfeited and you shall have no claim for the damages”
The perusal of above mentionedletter itself shows that the earnest money was Rs.180000/- and the complainant will pay an amount of Rs.318000/- upto 11.01.2018. As per complainant he paid an amount of Rs.318000/- dated 10.01.2018 with the respondent. Thereafter he further paid an amount of Rs.2 Lac on 09.02.2018, Rs.571000/- on 10.02.2018 and Rs.1 lac on dated 02.07.2018. In this way he paid a total amount of Rs.1369000/- against the plot no.176 sector 21-P, Rohtak with the respondent. The respondent officials submitted in written statement that the complainant has not deposited the total tentative price of the plot within prescribed period. The claim of the complainant regarding the refund of earnest money was rejected after considering the statutory provision of regulation no.5 (3) and as per the form C-R/allotment letter condition no.4 which clearly bars the refund of earnest money. As per our opinion the facts of the present case are different from the other complaints. In the present case the complainant has not merely deposited the earnest money amounting to Rs.180000/-. In fact he further deposited an amount of Rs..1189000/- against the total price of plot amounting to Rs.1992000/- upto02.07.2018. The last date of submission of entire amount as per Ex.C1 was 10.02.2018. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1269000/- upto10.02.2018 with the respondentofficials. He further deposited an amount of Rs.100000/- on 02.07.2018. Here the case is on different footing because the complainant has deposited more than the earnest money. The perusal of clause 4 itself states that if the consumer fails to deposit the entire amount upto 10.02.2018 in that situation the allotment stands cancelled without any notice and the earnest money deposited by the consumer shall stand forfeited.As per our opinion if the complainant has not deposited the entire amount upto 10.02.2018 in that situation the department have a duty to refund the amount just after 10.02.2018 after deducting the earnest money from the deposited amount and toreturn back the remaining amount to the complainant immediately but the department has not refunded the amountupto 5 years.And received an amount of Rss.100000/- on 02.07.2018 from the complainant. So the respondent official itself violated the condition no.4 of the allotment letter after receiving the amount of Rs.100000/- from the complainant on 02.07.2018. So the case of the complainant cannot be settled after considering the condition no.4 of the allotment letter. At the time of arguments ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record a document ‘Annexure-JN-A, as per which during the pendency of complaint respondent officials have refunded the amount of Rs.1189000/- on 22.06.2023 after deducting the earnest money after a delay of more than 5 years. An amount of Rs.1369000/- was deposited by the complainantupto 02.07.2018 and the same was used by the department/opposite parties for 5 years. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to pay the interest on the alleged amount as well as to refund the earnest money of Rs.180000/- to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite partiesto refund the amount of Rs.180000/-(Rupees one lac eighty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date its deposit i.e.13.12.2017 to till its realization, to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs.1189000/- w.e.f. 02.07.2018 to 22.06.2023. Opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision..
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.04.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
