District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 37/2023.
Date of Institution: 16.01.2023.
Date of Order: 10.08.2023.
Smt. Tara Rani W/o Hem Raj Aggarwal R/o H.No. 1580, Secator-15, Faridabad. M:9811040436.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
The Estate Officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), Sector-12, Faridabad.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
PRESENT: Sh. Ankur Gosain , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Arun Katoch , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that one Booth bearing NO. 104P, Sector-15 Faridabad was allotted to the complainant by HSVP vide allotment letter bearing memo No. 2535 dated 23.10.1989 for a total consideration
amount of Rs.3,88,175/-. The said booth was purchased by the complainant to earn her livelihood. Out of the above said amount a sum of Rs.38,850/- was deposited as bid money by the complainant and thereafter a sum of Rs.58,275/- was deposited by the complainant on 23.11.1989 in order to complete the 25% of the sale price of the booth, as mentioned in the allotment letter dated 23.10.1989. Thereafter a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid on 27.01.1992 by the complainant in respect of her above mentioned booth. In the year 2000 the applicant went to the office of HSVP where she was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the price of booth No. 104, Sector-15, Faridabad and the said amount was then deposited by the complainant on 28.03.2000. In this manner a total sum of Rs.3,37,125/- had been paid by the complainant to HSVP against booth NO. 104P, Secator-15, Faridabad. No letter nor notice was issued to the complainant from HSVP for making payment in respect of the booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad at any point of time. When the complainant moved an application before HSVP to obtain a no dues certificate in respect of Booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad, then vide letter dated 04.01.2023, it was informed to the complainant that her booth had been resumed by the HSVP in the year 2001 on the ground of non-payment vide resumption letter bearing endorsement No. 388 dated 02.02.2001. The complainant was shocked to know about the said resumption as no such letter or notice was ever served upon the complainant for making any payment in respect of the booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad. After attaining knowledge about the said fact the complainant informed the opposite party that she had already paid a sum of Rs.3,37,125/- out of total sale price of Rs.3,88,500/- & was ready to pay the remaining amount in respect of the said plot to HSVP alongwith simple interest @ 10% p.a. Complainant also requested the opposite party several times to restore the allotment of the said booth in favour of the complainant after receiving entire
outstanding dues alongwith simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the complainant, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The resumption order bearing endorsement No.388 dated 02.02.2001 issued by the HSVP was illegal and arbitrary as the same had been issued without giving any prior notice of resumption to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to receive the outstanding dues alongwith simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the complainant and thereafter restore the allotment of the said booth NO. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad in the name of the complainant. Any other relief which this Commission deems fit may also be awarded to the complainant.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad was allotted to the complainant by the opposite party vide office memo No. 2535 dated 23.10.1989, as the same was sold out at a tentative price of Rs.3,88,500/-. The show cause notice under sections 17(1) and 17(2) of HUDA Act was issued to the complainant vide office memo NO. 1940 dated 23.07.1993 vide which the complainant was asked to make the payment of dues amounting to Rs.2,57,550/- with the answering opposite party. But when the complainant did not make the payment, then another notice under section 17(2) was issued to the complainant by the opposite party, vide office memo NO. 888 dated 18.05.2000 vide which the complainant was asked to make the payment of amount due, but when the complainant did not make the payment, then again another notice under section 17(1) was issued by the opposite party to the name of complainant vide office memo No. 1082 dated 27.06.2000 vide which the complainant was asked to make the payment of amount due, prior to this notice
under section 17(3) vide office memo No. 1019 dated 12.06.2000 was issued to the complainant. The opposite party again issued another notice under section 17(4) vide office memo No. 2113 dated 07.12.2000 to the name of the complainant, but when the complainant did not give any response, then the booth in question was resumed by the opposite party vide office memo No. 388 dated 02.02.2001, due to non payment of amount of Rs.9,96,420/- by the complainant. Thereafter, an eviction notice under section 18(1) was issued to the name of complainant qua the property in question by the opposite party vide office memo No. 56518 dated 24.11.2003. Against which the complainant filed an appeal before Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad, but the said appeal of complainant was dismissed on 05.09.2003 vide Endst. No. 6209 dated 05.09.2003. Further the notice under section 18(1) was issued to the name of the complainant by the opposite party, vide office memo No. 11119 dated 25.10.2016 and then again another notice under section 18(2) was issued vide office memo No. 11647 dated 11.11.2016 to the name complainant. The complainant again filed another appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad and the said appeal was finally decided by Administrator, HSVP. Faridabad on 25.11.2021, vide which the said appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed.Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–HSVP. with the prayer to receive the outstanding dues alongwith simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the complainant and thereafter restore the
allotment of the said booth NO. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad in the name of the complainant. Any other relief which this Commission deems fit may also be awarded to the complainant.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Tara Rani, Ex.C1 (colly P9 to 12) – allotment letter, Ex.C2 – memo dated 4.1.2023 regarding issuance of no dues certificate and for execution of conveyance deed in respect of booth No. 104-P, Sector-15, Faridabad, Ex.C3 – receipt, Ex.C-4 - receipt dated 23.11.89, Ex. C-5 – receipt dated 29.03.2000, Ex.C-6 – order dated 2.2.2021.
Shri Arun Katoch, counsel for the opposite party has made a statement that the written statement already filed be read as evidence on behalf of opposite and closed the same. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite party has been closed vide order dated 10.05.2023.
6. As per allotment letter vide memo No. 2535 dated 23.10.1989 vide Ex. C1(P9 to12), the booth bearing No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad was allotted to the complainant by HSVP for a total consideration amount of Rs.3,88,175/-. Out of the abovesaid amount a sum of Rs.38,850/- was deposited as bid money by the complainant and thereafter a sum of Rs.58,275/- was deposited by the complainant on 23.11.1989 vide Ex.C4 in order to complete the 25% of the sale price of the booth, as mentioned in the allotment letter dated 23.10.1989. As per Ex.C3, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 27.01.1992 to the opposite party in respect of her above mentioned booth. As per Ex.C-5 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.03.2000 towards the price of booth No. 104, Sector-15, Faridabad. The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.3,37,125/- to the opposite party against booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad. When the complainant moved an application before HSVP to obtain a No dues certificate in
respect of Booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad, vide memo No. 198 dated 04.01.2023(vide Ex.C-2) it was informed to the complainant that her booth has been resumed by the HSVP vide office memo No. 388 dated 02.02.2001. The opposite party has not issued any letter or notice to the complainant for making any payment in respect of the booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad.
As per letter No. 59 dated 2.2.2001 vide Ex.C6 in which it has been mentioned that opposite party has issued memo No. 1082 dated 27.06.2K, memo No. 1681 dated 9.10.2K, memo No. 1758 dated 17.10.2K, No. 2113 dated 7.12.2K respectively to the complainant, but despite these notices, the allottee did not clear the arrears amounting to Rs. 9.96,420/-. Therefore, with no option but to resume the site i.e Booth No. 104, Sector-15, Faridabad and also forfeited Rs.10% consideration of money. But the opposite party has not placed on record to prove their case that they have sent any letter and memo to the complainant to deposit the money.
On the other hand, the complainant is an old lady and is not conversant with the technicalities and procedures of HUA and is in possession of the said booth since the time of the allotment. After attaining knowledge about the said fact the complainant informed the opposite party that the complainant had already paid Rs.3,37,125/- out of the total sale price of Rs.3,88,500/- and is ready to pay the remaining amount in respect of the plot in question to HSVP alongwith interest.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the booth was allotted to Tara Rani for her livelihood and she has deposited 80% of the total amount. She is suffering since 25 years and she has having the possession as well as the ownership of the booth in question. Opposite party never refunded the amount to the opposite party or given any notice as per policy of HUDA. There are lots of citations of Pb. & Hr. High Court when the opposite party has taken more than 25% they cannot resume without any reason or cancel the allotment of the complainant. In this case, there are similar facts of this case.
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has deposited 80% of the total amount. Opposite party never served any notice, cancellation or resumption letter to the complainant. In the interest of justice, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to issue conveyance deed after restoring the allotment of the booth No. 104P, Sector-15, Faridabad in the name of the complainant after taking the balance payment. Opposite party is also directed to send the demand notice of the balance amount to the complainant and thereafter the complainant will deposit the amount to the opposite party .Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 10.08.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
