National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Pushpa Singhal vs Haryana Urban Development Authority, on 4 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NTAIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.
1142 OF 2010
Alongwith M. A. for
Stay
(From order dated 09.03.2009 in Appeal No. 551 of 2006
of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Haryana)
Smt. Pushpa
Singhal,
W/o Sh.
Girdhar Gopal Singhal,
Resident of
H. No. 1001,
Sector-2,
Scheme No. 7,
Shanti
Mnagar, Meerut,
Uttar
Pradesh
Through G.
P. A. Holder
Sh. Bishnu
Kumar
Son of Late
Shri Ram Narayan
Resident of
House No. 1693,
Sector-7-E,
Faridabad.
..Petitioner
1. Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Sector-6, Panchkula
Through its Chief Administrator
2. Estate Officer,
Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Sector- 12,
Fardiabad
Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents :
Mr. R. S. Badhran, Advocate
Pronounced on: 4th
February, 2013
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER By way of present petition, petitioner/complainant has challenged order dated 9.3.2009, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, State Commission).
2. Petitioner was allotted residential plot no. 331, measuring 350.8 Sq. yards in Sector-64, HUDA, Faridabad, vide allotment letter dated 8.1.2001. Petitioner surrendered the plot in question to the respondent and got refund after deduction of 10% of the tentative price, vide cheuqe No.587862 dated 28.06.2003, as per respondents/o.p. policy which was accepted by her without any protest. Case of petitioner is that she had surrendered the plot under compelled circumstances because the development works in the area were not completed and for that reason she could not raise construction over the plot. In the complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, District Forum) petitioner has prayed that an alternative plot be allotted to her; the deducted 10% amount be adjusted and she be paid 18% per annum interest on the total deposited amount; not to charge interest on the installments amount and delayed interest; not to charge extension fee and to pay Rs.50,000/-on account of mental agony and harassment caused to her and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Respondent in its written statement justified the refund 10% of the tentative price of the plot as petitioner had surrendered the plot of her sweet will. It is also stated that the development works in the area were in progress and possession was to be delivered very soon. However, petitioner had surrendered the plot in question for some personal reasons and had accepted the refund without any protest. Thus, the complaint merit dismissal.
5. District Forum, while accepting the complaint, vide order dated 16.1.2006, granted the following reliefs ;
I) The respondent are ordered to allot an alternative plot in some developed sector of Fardabad at the basic price of the sector to the complainant in lieu of Plot No. 331, Sector-64, Faridabad.
ii) It is further ordered if the area of the alternate plot is found excess then difference of amount be also charged on the basic floating rate of the sector.
iii) The respondents are further ordered to adjust the deducted amount alongwith interest @ 13% p.a. payable w.e.f.its deduction till its adjustment towards the price of the plot now to be allotted as per aforesaid order.
iv) The respondents are also ordered not to charge any kind of interest, penal interest, compound interest, penalty and extension fee up till the period of delivery of the physical possession of the plot now ordered to be allotted.
v) The respondents are also ordered to pay interest on the deposited amount of the complainant w.e.f. its deposit till refund.
vi) The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- on account of mental tension, unnecessary harassment caused to the complainant at the hands of the respondents.
vii) The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation charges.
The complainant herself or through her G. P.A. can get comply with the order of the Forum. The respondents are ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after receiving the copy of the present order.
6. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission and the same was allowed by the impugned order.
7. Hence, this revision.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent had failed to develop the plot in question and that is why it never offered possession of the same to the petitioner. Thus, respondents have violated the terms of letter of allotment. Moreover, petitioner had sought the refund of the deposited amount, under compelling circumstances which had been created solely by the respondents.
10. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that since petitioner has withdrawn the amount deposited by her, she cease to be a consumer and as such consumer complaint itself is not maintainable.
11. State Commission in its impugned order has observed ;
Admittedly, the plot No. 331 located in Sector-64, HUDA, Faridabad was allotted to the complainant and possession of the same was to be delivered after completion of the development works. However, the complainant vide his letter dated 22.4.2003 submitted to the opposite parties had requested for refund mentioning in the letter that he was not in a position to deposit further installments due to personal reason and cheque No. 587862 dated 28.6.2003 was accepted by him without any protest and after about one year and eight months, the complaint was filed by him. It cannot be ignored that as per Clause 6 of the letter of allotment, the complainant was provided facility that no interest would be charged till the offer of possession on the instalments amount. Therefore, the clause 6 of the allotment letter falsify the version of the complainant itself.
Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the rising price of the landed property, we are of the opinion that the complainant wanted to take benefit of higher price of the plot by filing present complaint on false averments in the complaint. Once he voluntarily surrendered the plot and accepted the refund without any protest, then filing of complaint after about one year and eight months cannot reopen his case. After surrender of the plot, he cannot be said a consumer of the opposite parties.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we feel that the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The District Forum has not considered the factual position on record and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained.
12. The letter vide which petitioner surrendered the plot in question reads as under;
To The Estate Officer HUDA, Faridabad Sub:
Surrender of Plot No.331 in Sector-64, Fardibad Sir, With due respect I am to state that I have been allotted the plot no. 331 in Sector-64, Faridabad. The possession of above said plot has not been offered to me till date. Due to two enhancement and_________ of enhancement in lumpsum, I am not in a position to pay any amount of enhancement/any amount to the above said plot in future being salaried person. It is therefore, request you to kindly refund the amount to me at any early date. Original allotment letter is lost by me and other original receipt of money deposited are enclosed for your further necessary action & early payment.
Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/-
(Smt. Pushpa Singhal)
W/o G. G. Singhal
Q.No. 1, Govt. Qtrs.,Type-III,
Dated 22.04.2003 Probyn Road, Delhi- 34.
13. As per the surrender letter, petitioner herself has sought refund of the amount, since she was not in a position to pay the enhanced amount.
14. As per Clause 7 & 9 of the Allotment Letter, possession of the site was to be offered on completion of development works in the area and the price mentioned in the allotment letter was only tentative and any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority/court under the land Acquisition Act, was to be payable proportionately by the allottees. Thus, the petitioner herself has withdrawn amount deposited by her and has tried to shift blame upon the respondents which cannot be permitted under the law. Admittedly, petitioner had already withdrawn the amount deposited by her and once she had taken the refund amount and as such on the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum on 12.4.2005, petitioner was not a Consumer as per Section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act). Under these circumstances, State Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. We fully concur with the observations made by the State Commission, that District Forum has ignored the factual position on record and committed a great error in accepting the complaint. Since, order passed by the State Commission is well reasoned, objective, fair, just and legal it needs absolutely no interference in this revision.
15. The present petition is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and has been filed just to waste the time of this Commission. It is well settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheels of justice, making it difficult for courts to provide easy and speedy justice to the genuine litigants. A strong message is required to be sent to those litigant who are in the habit of challenging the order of the fora below even it the same is based on sound reasoning. No one should be allowed to indulge in false and frivolous litigation. Action of the petitioner has resulted in wasting the time of fora below as well as of this Commission. Under these circumstances, present revision petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly, we dismiss this revision petition with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
16. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Welfare Fund as per Rule 10A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today.
17. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within prescribed period, then she shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.
18. List on 08.03.2013 for compliance.
.J (V.B. GUPTA) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) J (K.S. CHAUDHARI) MEMBER SSB/