State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Santosh Kumari Wife Of Sh. Om Parkash, ... vs 1.Haryana Urban Development ... on 13 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1344 of 2009 Date of Institution: 11.09.2009 Date of Decision: 13.09.2012 Santosh Kumari wife of Sh. Om Parkash, retired Sub Inspector of Police, R/o House No.12/550, Batra Colony, Sonepat. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon through its Estate Officer. 2. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 6, Panchkula. Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri G.I. Sharma, Advocate for appellant. Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated
02.07.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgain in Execution Application No.261/2007.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the appellant-complainant had filed complaint bearing No.558/2006 titled as Smt. Santosh Kumari vs. HUDA before the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon for issuance of Possession Certificate in respect of plot No.582, Sector 45, Gurgaon with further prayer not to charge any interest/penal interest on account of extension fee and refund of excess amount paid by the complainant under various heard of accounts alongwith interest. The aforesaid complaint on having been contested by the respondents-opposite parties was decided vide order dated 01.08.2007 with the directions reproduced herein below:-
We therefore, in these circumstances allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant forthwith and to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date falling within the limitation of two years from filing this complaint till the possession of the plot is delivered to the complainant at the rate as per HUDA policy and not to charge any extension fees till then, to refund the excess payment if any, charged by the opposite parties from the complainant that too with interest from the date falling within the limitation of two years from filing this complaint till actual payment is made at the rate as per HUDA policy. opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant. Order of this Forum be complied within one month.
In order to execute the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2007, the complainant filed Execution Application bearing No.261/2007 before the District Forum, Gurgaon which was decided vide order dated 02.07.2009, the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below:-
After going through the record, we feel that the possession could not be delivered to the complainant on 22.5.2008 because of the failure on part of the complainant to deposit three signatures on the required form. We therefore take that the possession is taken to have been delivered to the complainant on 22.5.2008. The interest for the period of 22 days i.e. upto 22.5.2008 is ordered to be given to the complainant. It be given within a period of 10 days from today. It has been stated before us by Suresh Kumar dealing clerk that HUDA had taken interest of the increased area from 2001. Now HUDA has decided to take interest regarding increased area only from 22.5.2008. The opposite parties are direct to return interest which has accrued from 2001 up to 22.5.2008. This amount is ordered to be returned to the complainant within 10 days from today. Thus, the present execution petition is hereby disposed of accordingly.
Aggrieved against the order dated 02.07.2009 passed in Execution Application No.261/2007, the complainant has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant-complainant it is contended that the District Consumer Forum has believed on the verbal statement of HUDA representatives without any documentary evidence that the possession letter was issued on 22.05.2008 whereas the perusal of the possession letter reveals that it was never sent under Registered Cover as there is no indication on the letter itself and also that the envelop, if received back by HUDA, has not been enclosed for their defence., whereas as per the provision under Section 42 of HUDA Act the letter of possession might had been sent to the complainant through registered post. Thus, it has been prayed by the appellant that the respondents-opposite parties be directed to implement the orders of the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon dated 01.08.2007 by considering the date of possession as 26.12.2008.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is without any force. From the record it is established that the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant on 22.05.2008 because the complainant herself had failed to deposit the form bearing three signatures as required and under these circumstances, it has been presumed that the possession was delivered to the complainant on 22.05.2008 and the interest for the period of 22 days i.e. upto 22.05.2008 has been ordered to be given to the appellant-complainant.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the direction issued by the District Forum in the order dated 02.07.2009.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 13.09.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member