Haryana

StateCommission

RP/47/2015

Rajinder Parsad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Hansi Improvement Trust, Hansi - Opp.Party(s)

23 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:    47 of 2015

Date of Institution:        05.06.2015

Date of Decision :         23.12.2015

 

Rajinder Parsad s/o Sh. Hari Chand, Resident of House No.66-P, Police Line Area, Hisar, Haryana, presently Residing at House No.25/24, Partap Nagar, D.L.F. Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Petitioner/Complainant

Versus

The Hansi Improvement Trust, Hansi, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate alongwith Shri Devender Ghakhar, Assistant Engineer for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Rajinder Parsad-complainant, has come up in revision against the order dated 21^st April, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Execution Application No.77 of 2014 having arisen out of Consumer Complaint No.817 of 1999.

2.      Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the complainant filed complaint No.817 of 1999 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, averring that he purchased plot No.37-B, in Model Town Shopping Complex, Hansi, in auction held on November 4^th, 1990. The size of the plot as mentioned in the allotment letter as well as possession certificate (Annexure A-2) was 24’ - 9” x 9’-9”. Besides, the disputing interest, which is no longer in question now, the only controversy remains as to whether the verandah measuring 8’-3” x 9’-9” to be left for public passage shall form part of the constructed area or outside it.

3.      Vide order dated 15^th February, 2000, the District Forum allowed complaint observing as under:-

“..In the above circumstances, this Forum has reached to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer of the respondent and the respondent has been negligent and deficient in providing services to the complainant because of the failure of the respondent to provide verandah measuring 8’3” x 9’9” in front side of the plot and 24’9” x 8’3” in the eastern side of the plot thus the complaint is accepted and the respondent is directed to  provide layout plan to the complainant by showing Verandah on both the sides of the aforesaid plot i.e. verandah of size 8’3” x 9’9” in front side of the plot and 24’9” x 8’3” on the eastern side of the plot bearing No.37-B by intacting the area of 24’9” x 9’9” of plot No.37-B referred to above to the complainant. The respondent is also directed to pay interest @ 18% to the complainant from 15-5-98 upto the date the aforesaid site plan is given to the complainant by the respondent to enable the complainant to submit site plan and to get the same approved for raising construction, as second part of the interest awarded to the complainant in complaint No.539/1995.”

4.      The Improvement Trust/Opposite Party, filed appeal bearing No.524/2000 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. However, the same was transferred to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, per order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

5.      The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 16^th October, 2006 observing as under:-

“11.   The site plan was sanctioned by the appellant vide order dated 16.9.99. It shows platform on the northern side as well as eastern side and no verandah has been mentioned. It is further stated that the respondent would construct verandah on the northern side by taking land of width of 8’3” out of area 14’9” x 9’9”. It is certainly unfair. Even vide letter dated 4.1.99 the secretary, Improvement Trust, Hansi had informed respondent that the standard design was not available in the office regarding making construction upon a plot of 24’9” x 9’9”. However, notings which are at page 64 suggest that the clerk had suggested that the plan should be got prepared from architect, so, that the allottee could construct according to that plan and might not face difficulty but no action was taken on the same.

12.    Counsel for the appellant contended that it was not case of the respondent in the complaint that he should be allowed verandah on the northern as well as eastern side but his case in the complaint was that copy of the layout plan of model town shopping complex was not supplied in order to enable the respondent to submit and approve site plan for making construction on plot No.37-B situated in Model Town, Hansi. However, the correspondence placed on file shows that the problem of respondent was the same i.e. appellant had not intentionally supplied the layout plan or site plan of standard design in order to enable the respondent to make construction on the plot as per layout plan showing verandah on northern and eastern side. The appellant had not intentionally supplied as it did not want that the respondent should construct verandah on the eastern as well as northern side.

13.    Therefore, in view of the discussion above, we hold that appellant had adopted unfair approach and had indulged in unfair trade practice at every step and conduct of public body is to be highly condemned. Consequently, we hold that there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/-.”

6.      Still aggrieved, the opposite party filed Revision Petition No.490 of 2007 before Hon’ble National Commission.

7.      Hon’ble National Commission, passed an interim order (Annexure A-6) 28^th February, 2007 as under:-

“        With regard to the order passed by the District Forum, it is made clear that for the areas which is purchased by the complainant (admeasuring 24’9”x8’3”), it would be open to the petitioner to prepare a sketch and give the same to the complainant. Beyond that area, there is no question of providing any verandah.

          With this observation, notice with regard to the payment of interest returnable on 28^th May 2007. Meantime, the order passed by the District Forum directing payment of interest at the rate of 18% is stayed.

          The respondent/complainant, who is present in person, accepts Notice.”

8.      Vide order (Annexure A-7) dated 28^th May 2007, Hon’ble National Commission issued interim direction as under:-

“        Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent agree that the complainant is entitled to use the plot admeasuring 9’9’ x 24’9’. With regard to verandah, it has to be kept as an open space, which can be used as an access by the public as per the layout plan, but the said verandah is not to be used as a private property by the complainant.

          With regard to the interest awarded by the State Commission, Admit. Notice returnable on 04^th March, 2008. Operation of the order directing the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% to the complainant from 15^th May 1998 is stayed. With regard to the other part of the order passed by the State Commission, the same is to be implemented, if not implemented already.”

9.      The revision petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 20^th August, 2014 observing as under:-

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time and bearing in mind the fact that the plot in question was purchased by the respondent in an open auction on 4.11.1990 for a total price of Rs.1,50,000/-, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, and has not so far been able to construct the shop because of some dispute with regard to the afore-mentioned verandah, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be sub-served if the petitioner Trust is directed to pay to the respondent interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount, from 14.5.1998 till the date when actual demarcation in terms of order dated 28.5.2007 is made. It is clarified that the interest, stated to have been paid to the respondent @ 18% per annum from 4.11.1990 to 14.5.1998 shall not be adjusted against the interest to be paid in terms of this order.

          Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states on instructions from Mr. Davinder Gakhar, SDO, who is present in person, that the plan for construction of the shop shall be sanctioned within 15 days of its submission by the respondent.

           Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

FA/618/2013

          Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of order dated 28.5.2007 in RP/490/2007, this Appeal is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.”

10.    Now the complainant has again re-agitated the issue with regard to the area to be under construction. The District Forum vide impugned order under revision dismissed the execution application observing as under:-

“For disposal of this execution petition, DH-Rajinder Prasad, as well as Sh. Devender Ghakhar, authorized representative of the JD, have given their statements to this forum which have been recorded. Statement of Sh. Devender Ghakhar authorized representative of the JD, has also been counter signed by Sh. P.L. Khurana, Advocate. As per order of Hon’ble National Commission dated 20.8.2014, passed in first appeal No.618/13 titled “Hansi Improvement Trust Vs. Rajinder Prasad”, the construction of the booth of the DH has to be as per layout plan, copy of which is placed on record by the J.D. today. J.D. has also given a statement having no objection in case DH Rajinder Prasad, raises the constructions of the booth as per the lay out plan. It is also stated on behalf of the JD that in case DH, submits his plan for construction of his said booth as per lay out plan and as per order of Hon’ble National Commission, then they shall sanction the same, within given period of 15 days.

          Undisputedly, rest of the order of Hon’ble National Commission under execution has already been complied with by the J.D. i.e. with regard to the payment of money to the D.H.

          DH-Rajinder Prasad however insists for his construction of the booth as per earlier site plan of the J.D. dated 25.9.2013. In the circumstances it is ordered that in case that site plan dated 25.9.2013 is in accordance with lay out plan, then D.H. may raise his constructions, otherwise strictly as per layout plan copy of which is placed on record. the DH has also given his statement for withdrawal of this execution petition.

          Resultantly, this execution petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the complainant/DH, to raise the construction of his booth, as per above order. Accordingly he may also submit plan for construction of the booth which shall be sanctioned by the JD, within given period of 15 days. File be consigned to record room.”

11.    Aggrieved of the said order, the complainant has come up in revision.

12.    Learned counsel for the complainant has again tried to re-agitate that the construction has to be raised on the entire allotted area of 24’9” x 9’9” and that the Verandah to be left has to be beyond that area.

13.    Hon’ble National Commission in the consent order dated 28.05.2007 has specifically observed that though the total area of booth is 9’9’ x 24’9’ however, the Verandah has to be kept as open space, which can be used as access by public and it shall not be used as private property by the complainant.

14.    We have perused the site plan of the area. The site plan shows the entire shopping complex consisting of booth No.33 to 42. All other booths have been constructed except that of the complainant. If the contention of the complainant is accepted, it will not only disturb the lay out but would be inconsistent to the lay out available. The site plan shows that every booth owner has left an area of 8’3” as Verandah. Besides in the letter vide which the approved drawing was sent to the complainant, it finds specifically mentioned that the area of Verandah was included in the total area of the plot. Moreover, Hon’ble National Commission in consenting order dated 28.05.2007 has specifically clarified that the verandah though forms part of allotted area, however, shall be kept as open space and can be used as an access by public as per the layout plan with further observation that the verandah is not to be used as a private property by the complainant. Thus, there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Forum. No case for interference is made out.

15.    Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

 

Announced 23.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL