State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban ... vs Sunita Bhatia Wife Of Surender Bhatia, ... on 19 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1072 of 2006 Date of Institution: 25.04.2006 Date of Decision: 19.03.2012 1. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula. 2. The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar. 3. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa. Appellants (Ops) Versus Sunita Bhatia wife of Surender Bhatia, Resident of House No.416, Sector-20, HUDA Colony, Sirsa Tehsil and District Sirsa. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for appellants. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.02.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sirsa in complaint No.369/2002.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainant was allotted plot No.416 in Sector-20, HUDA, Sirsa. After getting the plan sanctioned, the complainant completed construction on the plot. Complainant applied for occupation certificate but the same was not issued on the ground that there was violation in the construction raised by the complainant and threatened the complainant to disconnect the water connection and sewerage connection. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Opposite Parties while contesting the complaint resisted complainants claim on the above stated ground and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint with the following observations:-
we find that the aforesaid violations made by the complainant covered under the minor violations, the alleged violations were not pointed by the official of the respondent/HUDA at the time of construction. The official of the respondent/HUDA bound to inspect the house of the consumer/allottee as and when the allottee raised the construction over the plot, but no proper inspection were made by the official of the respondent. It is also a matter of record that the respondent deputed the Jr.Engineer as well as SDO for this purpose but no proper inspection was made by the official of the respondent/HUDA, well within time. The office of the respondent/HUDA also situated in the same locality, even then no objection has been raised regarding the construction. At this belated stage, the respondent/HUDA has no legal right to raise such types of objections and bound to issue the completion certificate in favour of the complainant after compounding the offence. In case Haryana Development Authority Vs. Ram Chand, 2003(1) CPC, page 561 (Haryana), the Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana held that the construction raised in violation of building by laws by the allottees/consumer, demolition not proper, violation should be compounded on payment of fees. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio of the above said judgment, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage, the complainant not in a position to remove the aforesaid alleged violations. Hence we direct the respondent/HUDA to compound the violation as per rules within a period of two months and after compounding violations issue completion certificate in favour of the complainant. We further direct the respondent/HUDA to compound the violations, if any, within a period of two months and recover the compound fees from the complainant. we further direct the complainant to deposit the compound fees assessed by the respondent/HUDA. We further direct the OP not to disconnect the sewerage as well as water connection to the house of the complainant. We find that as per record, the complainant has completed the construction over the plot in question in the month of Dec., 2001 and wrote a letter to the Estate Office, HUDA in this regard and sent the information, found no alternative, the complainant in compelling circumstances, occupied the house in question, without obtaining the occupation certificate. There is no lapse on the part of the complainant, hence the respondent/HUDA has no legal right to charge any amount on account of occupation of the house in question. We further direct the respondent/HUDA to implement the present order within stipulated period, failing which the erring official/officer of the HUDA shall have to face the legal consequences. The demand of compensation as well as costs of proceedings declined because the aforesaid relief granted by us is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly with no order as to costs.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not fine any infirmity in the well reasoned order passed by District Consumer Forum. Undisputed, the violation committed by the complainant in raising construction of her house is compoundable and therefore, the opposite parties should compound the same by charging the compounding fee from the complainant as per HUDA rules.
In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 19.03.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member