State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Renu Kiran Chopra Wife Of Shri ... vs 1.Haryana Urban Development ... on 17 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.317 of 2010 Date of Institution: 09.03.2010 Date of Decision: 17.09.2012 Smt. Renu Kiran Chopra wife of Shri Ramesh Chopra, r/o House No.151, Sector 19, Part-I, Urban Estate, Kaithal, Haryana. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula, Haryana. 2. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra, Haryana. 3. The Sub-Divisional Engineer,, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sub-Division No.2, Kurukshetra, Haryana. Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri N.P. Sharma, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Case called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of the respondents though the case is fixed for arguments. It is already 1.00 P.M. As per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appeals are to be decided within the prescribed period. The non-cooperative attitude of respondents counsel is against the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal. Hence, we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and going through the case file.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra whereby complaint filed by the complainant (appellant herein) was dismissed.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the appellant-complainant was allotted plot No.886-P, Sector 7, Kurukshetra by the respondents-opposite parties vide allotment letter dated 16.09.1985 on a tentative price of Rs.26,977.10. The possession of the site was to be offered on completion of development work in the area. The opposite parties offered the possession of the plot to the complainant on 30.03.1992 but without completing the development works with respect to the roads, electricity, water, sewerage etc. The complainant further stated that the paper possession by the opposite parties was not tallying with the dimensions at the spot and the area was very less on the spot and for that reason letters dated 10.04.1995, 1.2.1998 were written by the complainant to the opposite parties but to no effect. The complainant was unable to construct house on his plot as the site plan which was submitted by her was not approved. The complainant alleged it a case of deficiency in service alleging that the opposite parties had offered the possession of the plot without development and also that no action for removal of sewer and water supply components from the plot of the complainant was taken. Complainant further stated that she had requested the Executive Engineer of HUDA, Kurukshetra to remove the sewer and water supply and the XEN, HUDA had directed the opposite party No.3 to do the needful and to submit the detailed report in the matter immediately after visiting the sit but the opposite party No.3 failed to submit any report. A show cause notice was received by received by the complainant on 29.11.2005 which was replied on 6.12.2005. It was stated by the complainant in his reply that the plot had been obstructed by the construction of sewerage system through the width of the land alongwith construction of slices valves within its precincts and it was requested to clear the obstruction from the plot enabling the complainant to construct her house.
On 17.2.2006, the opposite parties issued a show cause notice which was replied on 2.3.2006 informing the opposite parties that sewer line was lying in the plot and it required the dismantling. The complainant submitted the building plan with the opposite parties on 28.12.2006 with the requisite fee but the said site plan was not approved. On the other hand, the opposite parties issued letter No.1878 dated 20.02.2007 whereby the amount of Rs.56,897/- was demanded as Extension fee. The complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party No.2 stating therein that the opposite parties were not entitled to charge any extension fee as they had failed to deliver the actual physical possession.
The complainant had sought some information from the opposite parties under the Right to Information Act and the opposite parties had informed the complainant that owners of plot No.2113, Sector-7 and 622 Sector-7, had been paid interest on their deposited amount as per direction of the Consumer Forum/ State Commission as HUDA had failed to deliver the actual physical possession of their respective plots. The opposite parties had admitted in their letter that sector dividing road between Sector-5 and Sector-7, was not complete as the land relating to the agricultural department was still under litigation. The opposite parties also admitted that the road was not complete as the land related to agricultural department was still under litigation. The complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw their letter dated 20.02.2007 and to deliver the actual physical possession and to approve the site plan but the opposite parties failed to do the needful.
The opposite parties vide letter No.7002 dated 15.05.2007 informed the complainant that a new policy was framed by the opposite parties that the allottees who had already availed 15 years or more by 31.12.2006, would have to complete at least minimum required construction of their plots and apply for occupation certificate by 31.12.2007 provided that they get their building plan approved by 30.6.2007 instead of 31.12.2006 as per previous guidelines. It was further informed that a rebate of 90 per cent on extension fee would be given on the residential plots owned exclusively by women and this would be made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2006. But no rebate was given to the complainant and the opposite parties shown the excessive amounts in their ledge maintained by them with respect to the account of the complainant. The entire lane alongwith plot No.886-P was abolished from the original site plan and private buildings had come up in Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. On 25.5.2007 the opposite parties again informed the complainant vide letter No.7641 that a sum of Rs.97,454/- was outstanding as on 31.5.2007 which included extension fee of Rs.79,791/-, Rs.3583/- on account of increased area price and Rs.14080/- on account of enhancement cost of increased area, which according to the complainant was totally illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement stating therein that the possession of the plot No.886-P, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra was delivered to the complainant after providing basic amenities like roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification and that too after receiving the report both from Engineering Wing as well as Electrical Wing. The report of development received from Civil Wing and Electrical Wing in the year 1995 and thereafter the original allottees were offered the possession of plots. It was further stated that the site of the plot was clear and there was no hindrance in starting the construction work on the plot. The other allegations levelled by the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal.
Heard.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant vide letter dated 16.09.1985 but the possession of the same was offered till 1992. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for delivery of possession and thereafter the opposite parties offered possession vide letter dated 30.03.1992 but that too without completing the development works and also that the plot of the complainant was not clear as a sewerage line was constructed underneath the plot. Even after making repeated requests from the side of the complainant, the opposite parties failed to complete the development works and to remove the sewerage line passing underneath the plot. When the complainant submitted site plan for raising construction on the plot, the opposite parties demanded extension fee and other charges which was illegal as the complainant was not able to raise construction under the compelling circumstances as the plot in question was not fit for raising construction.
The controversy raised by the appellant-complainant has to be examined by going through the documents produced on the record. Admittedly, the plot was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 16.09.1995 and possession was offered on dated 30.03.1992.
It has come on the record that the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 08.01.1998 had informed the appellant-complainant that the conveyance-deed was required to be executed within a period of one month upon which the appellant-complainant vide her reply dated 02.02.1998 requested the opposite party No.2 to remove the obstruction which was being caused on the plot in question on account of the sewerage system which was running through her plot. The complainant had already taken up the matter regarding the same with the XEN, HUDA, Karnal already but to no avail. The complainant had sought the requisite information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the opposite party No.2 vide her application dated 12.04.2007. The opposite party No.2 on 15.05.2007 had supplied the information to the complainant vide its letter Annexure A-14, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-
(iv) It is made clear that physical possession as requested in your both the letters dated 6.12.2005 and 2.3.2006 is given only after building plan is got approved and a willingness in writing is given in office for starting the construction.
(vi) The dimensions of your plot (Measuring 8.21 Mtrs x 23.47 Mts = 192.69 Sqm.) tally with the dimensions at the site. A paper possession issued vide this office memo No.19797-98 dated 30.12.2006 is a proof of it.
In view of the above said document it is clear that that the plea of the opposite parties qua delivering possession of the plot to the complainant in the year 1992 was only a paper possession and in fact the possession was offered to the complainant on 30.12.2006 under the circumstances of the case. It is also established on the record that earlier the dimensions of the plot in question were 8 Meters x 18 Mtrs=144 Sq Mtrs. Thus, the dimensions were changed by the opposite parties to 8.21 Mtrs x 23.74 Mtrs = 192.69 Sq. mtrs.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the complainant, it is established on the record that the respondents-opposite parties were deficient in service for not delivering the possession of the plot to the appellant-complainant after completing the development works for a long period of about nineteen years and since the possession of the plot was offered on 30.12.2006, the opposite parties cannot charge the impugned amount of Rs.56,897/- which was demanded from the complainant vide letter No.1878 dated 20.02.2007. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the instant case in its true perspective, hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum in dismissing the complaint cannot be allowed to sustain. Admittedly, the opposite parties have shown the outstanding amount against the appellant-complainant to the extent of Rs.97,454/- as on 31.5.2007 which includes Rs.79,791/- as extension fee due to non-construction of the plot, Rs.3583/- on account of increase area price and Rs.14,080/- as enhanced price of increased area cost. In our view the demand of Rs.3583/-+ Rs.14,080/- on account of increased area price alongwith interest is justified. But at the same time it is held that the opposite parties had wrongly demanded the amount of Rs.79,791/- as extension fee which relates to the period before offering the possession of the plot to the complainant on 30.12.2006 after completing the development works and the same is not sustainable.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions, this appeal is accepted and while setting aside the impugned order, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted with the following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) The respondents-opposite parties are directed not to recover the amount of Rs.79,791/-
as extension fee.
ii) The opposite parties shall pay interest @ 10% per annum to the appellant-complainant on the deposited from the date of respective deposits to be calculated after two years from the date of allotment of the plot i.e. 16.09.1985 till 30.12.2006.
iii) To pay Rs.10,000/-
on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
iv) To pay litigation expenses of Rs.2200/-.
The respondents-opposite parties are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within 60 days from the date of this order.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 17.09.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member