State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shantilok Cooperative Housing Society ... vs 1.Haryana Urban Development ... on 18 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.819 OF 2010 Date of Institution: 04.06.2010 Date of Decision: 18.10.2012 Shantilok Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.3, Sector-3, Part II, Rewari through its President. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula. 2. Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-14, HUDA Complex, Gurgaon. 3. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rewari. Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri R.S. Sihag, Advocate for appellant. Shri Ajay Nara, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.04.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rewari whereby complaint filed by the complainant (appellant herein) was dismissed.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that that the complainant-Society was allotted plot No.3 measuring 4000 sq. mtrs located in Sector-3, Part-II, Rewari vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.2717 dated 17.5.2000 @ Rs.1938/- per sq. meter. As per Clause No.7.1 of the scheme, the contruction of the houses/flats was to be completed within five years from the date of offer of possession i.e. on which un method approach Road, water supply and approved zoning plan was made available by HUDA. As per Clause 7.2 of the scheme, the offer of possession of the plot was to be given after the approved zoning plan, water supply and unmelted road was made available by HUDA. The possession of the plot was offered by HUDA on 27.8.2002 but when the complainant approached the Estate Officer, then the complainant was informed vide Memo No.9634 dated 26.9.2002 that the zoning was not complete. Complainant made several requests for possession of the plot and the same was given to the complainant on 4.3.2003. The complainant completed the construction and thereafter applied to the opposite parties for granting of rebate of 20% vide letter dated 19.5.2005 but the opposite parties vide letter bearing Memo No.476 dated 14.6.2005 asked the complainant to submit the proof/photographs alongwith the completion file regarding completion of construction. According to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the occupation certificate was not required. The complainant made request for the grant of rebate vide letter dated 22.8.2005. The complainant applied for occupation certificate on 14.12.2005 but the opposite party No.3 vide letter No.8401, 724 dated 30.01.2006 stated that 20% rebate could not be granted as the complainant had not completed the construction within three years.
Complainant wrote letter dated 27.2.2006 to the opposite parties that the zoning was not complete as per letter No.9634 dated 26.9.2002 and the possession of plot was given to the complainant on 4.3.2003 and therefore, the construction was completed within 3 years. Thereafter, Shri Sujan Singh, the then Estate Officer had recommended 20% rebate to the opposite party No.2 but lateron Shri G.L.Yadav, Estate Officer, denied the same vide letter No.9787 dated 26.10.2006. The opposite parties by treating the date 09.12.2005 as the date of completion of construction, allowed only 10% rebate. The complainant again approached the opposite parties to give rebate 20% but to no effect. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and denied the claim of the complainant in view of the facts stated in the preceding para and took the plea that the complainant had not completed the construction within three years and therefore was not entitled to rebate of 20%. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum finding no substance in complainants version dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal.
Argument heard. File perused.
On behalf of the appellant it is contended that Shri Sujan Singh, the then Estate Officer, HUDA, had recommended 20% rebate to the opposite party No.2 but lateron Shri G.L.Yadav, Estate Officer but the same was denied. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the recommendation of rebate 20% by the Estate Officer Shri Sujan Singh, reflect that the complainant had completed the construction within three years. From the record it is established that the offer of possession was given to the complainant on 04.03.2003 and this fact was admitted by the opposite parties at the time of refund of interest charged on instalments amounting to Rs.1,76,579/- vide cheque No.106213 dated 27.10.2008. Thus, the act and conduct of the opposite parties for taking the date of offer of possession as 27.08.2002 is illegal and arbitrary and the same is against the cogent and convincing evidence available on the record. Therefore, the complainant-Society is entitled to the rebate of 20% instead of 10%. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of this case in its true perspective. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed with the direction to the respondents-opposite parties to grant rebate of 20% after deducting the 10% rebate already given to the complainant. Cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.5500/-. Order be complied within 60 days from today.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 18.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member