National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sewa Ram vs Estate Officer, Huda on 12 January, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3033 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 17/05/2012 in Appeal No. 64/2009 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. SEWA RAM R/o H.No-901 GF Sector-3,
Through its General Atorney Holder
Sh Ramesh pandey ,S/o Sh Kheme Nand
R/o H.No-901 GF ,Sector-3, Faridabad Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA Sector-3 Faridabad Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
Dated : 12 Jan 2021 ORDER
ORDER
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act 1986'), in challenge to the Order dated 17.05.2012 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (the 'State Commission') in F.A. No. 64 of 2009, arising out of the Order dated 12.11.2008 in C.C. No. 833 of 2004 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (the 'District Forum').
The Petitioner, Mr. Sewa Ram, was the Complainant before the District Forum (the 'Complainant').
The Respondent, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), was the Opposite Party before the District Forum (the 'HUDA').
2. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the two sides through video conferencing on 14.12.2020.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 12.11.2008 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 17.05.2012 of the State Commission and the Petition.
3. The dispute relates to resumption of a plot by HUDA on the Complainant failing to deposit the instalments and enhanced price as per the terms and conditions of the allotment.
4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 12.11.2008 allowed the Complaint. It ordered HUDA to withdraw its statutory notices and resumption order, prepare the statement of account of the plot showing the amount to be deposited by the Complainant towards the cost of the plot, restore the plot in the name of the Complainant after the deposit of the outstanding amount by him and pay Rs. 2200/- as cost of litigation.
5. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 17.05.2012 accepted the Appeal of HUDA. It set aside the Order dated 12.11.2008 of the District Forum and dismissed the Complaint.
6. The State Commission has passed a speaking Order. The crux of the matter, as succinctly reasoned by the State Commission, on appraisal of the evidence, is that the Complainant was allotted a plot by HUDA on 27.03.1989. He failed to deposit the instalments and the enhanced price as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Notices were issued to him under the relevant sections of the statute under which HUDA functions. Several opportunities were given to him to make the payment towards the instalments and the enhanced price. But the Complainant failed to do so. Therefore the resumption order was passed by HUDA on 13.06.2003.
7. There is a distinctive distinction between a private builder firm or company and a government development authority. HUDA is a government development authority. It works ( / is required and expected to work) as per the prescribed administrative, financial and technical rules laid-down by the government, its accounts are subject to audit.
8. It has nowhere been shown by the Complainant that HUDA committed any infringement of any administrative, financial or technical rule in his case. Nor has it been shown by the Complainant that HUDA has in any manner differentiated between him and other similarly situate persons in the subject or similar schemes. And it has also not been shown by the Complainant that HUDA adopted any arbitrary or wrong or unlawful or corrupt etc. practice in his case.
9. As such, the critique made by the State Commission cannot be faulted.
The District Forum erred in ordering that, after statutory notices and sufficient opportunity to pay the instalments and the enhanced price of the plot, and after the (lawful) resumption of the plot, HUDA should (now) withdraw its notices and resumption order, prepare a statement of account and restore the plot to the Complainant on deposit of the outstanding amount. Such order made by the District Forum is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. With this discussion, the Petition preferred by the Complainant is dismissed. The State Commission's Order of 17.05.2012 is confirmed. The Complaint stands dismissed.
11. It is but added that HUDA through its Chief Executive shall be duty bound to make refund of any (partial) amount deposited by the Complainant with HUDA as per its normal administrative and financial rules applicable to all similarly situate persons, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.
12. A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Chief Executive of HUDA and to the Complainant within three days of its pronouncement.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER