State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Estate Officer, Huda, Faridabad. ... vs Parveen Kumar Arora, House No.1326, ... on 11 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.462 of 2006 Date of Institution: 24.02.2006 Date of Decision: 11.01.2012 1. Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. 2. The Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad through Estate Officer, Faridabad. 3. The Chief Administrator, huds, Sector-6, Panchkula, through Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. Appellants (Ops) Versus Parveen Kumar Arora, House No.1326, Sector-1, Faridabad. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rajinder Nain, Advocate for appellants. Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.12.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faridabad in complaint No.202/2004.
The brief facts of the present case not disputed between the parties as emerged from the record are that the complainant (respondent herein) was allotted plot No.2738 in Sector-2, Faridabad vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.110 dated 11.11.1998 on a tentative price of Rs.2,13,127/-. Complainant deposited Rs.2,63,199/- with the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties failed to offer possession of the plot as the plot was deleted from the plan. The opposite parties vide letter dated 31.10.2000 and 22.04.2002 demanded the enhanced price of the plot. But instead of depositing the enhanced price, the complainant moved an application to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad on 25.02.2004 for taking refund of the deposited amount and preferred not to retain the plot. The application of the complainant was under process but in the mean time the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad on 08.03.2004 wherein following prayer was made:-
It is therefore prayed that Honorable Forum may kindly
a) Pass an order directing the respondent to refund the deposited money 2,63,199/- along with interest 18% per annum from the date of deposition of amount till full and final realization of amount as compensation for loss of interest.
b) Respondent may also please be directed to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- as increasing cost of building material/labour charges etc and to reduce mental agony, pain, shock etc.
c) Rs.2,000/- cost of litigation.
d) Such other relief, which this Honble Forum may deem fit may also please be awarded.
However, after filing of the complaint the opposite parties issued cheque No.645475 dated 23.03.2004 for an amount of Rs.2,63,199/- and the cheque was encashed by the complainant. Opposite Parties by filing written statement contested the complaint and while denying any kind of deficiency in service, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
District Consumer Forum vide order dated 14.12.2005 accepted complaint and issued following directions:-
1. The respondents are ordered to re-allot plot No.2738 Sector-2 Faridabad, to the complainant on the similar price and in case if it is not found vacant and unallotted then allot another plot of the same size and on the similar price, in some developed pocket of the same sector.
2. The respondents are further ordered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount of the complainant w.e.f. its deposit till its realization. If any amount has been deducted from the deposited amount of the complainant that be also paid to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. its deposit till its realization.
3. The respondents are further ordered not to charge any kind of interest, penal interest, compound interest, penalty and extension fee from the complainant w.e.f. the allotment of the plot in question uptil the period of delivery of the physical possession of the plot as ordered above.
4. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. It is further ordered that the account of the complainant be overhauled and after overhauling the account of the complainant the amount whichever so be assessed, as per the aforesaid spirit, the same be adjusted towards the price of the plot now to be allotted to the complainant as per aforesaid order.
The respondents are also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order. Complaint has been disposed of, accordingly.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Admittedly, the grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the possession of the plot was not offered to him by the opposite parties and for that reason he sought the refund of the deposited amount by moving an application which was received in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad on 25.2.2004. The said application of the complainant was under consideration but in the mean time the complainant filed complaint. However, after filing of the complaint, the complainant was refunded the entire deposited amount of Rs.2,63,199/- vide cheque dated 23.03.2004.
Now the question arises before us, whether the complainant is entitled to any interest on the deposited amount? In this regard HUDA policy in surrender cases circulated vide letter bearing Memo No.A-11-P-95/33924-51 dated 14.12.1995 issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to all the Administrators, Estate Officers and Assistant District Attorneys in the Estate Offices of HUDA cases needs to be taken into consideration, which is reproduced as under:-
From The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula.
To
1.
All the Administrators, HUDA.
2. All the Estate Officers/Asstt. Estate Officers, HUDA.
3. All the Asstt. District Attorneys in Estate Offices of HUDA.
Memo No.A-11-P-95/33924-51 Dated:
14.12.1995.
Subject: Acceptance of surrender of residential sites in various Urban Estates of HUDA.
In supersession of this office memo No.A-11P-94/2975-76 dated 08.2.94 on the above subjected.
In the wake of Judgment dated 18.7.95 given by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos.9867 and 9887 of 1994 (Copy enclosed) wherein it has been laid down that in case where the petitioners have come forward with a plea that they do not want to pay the remaining amount and want to surrender the land, the provisions of Sub Sections (2),(3),(4) of Section-17 of HUDA Act 1977 will be deemed to have been satisfied and there can be no legal justification for declining the request of the petitioners to accept the surrender of their land. So it has been decided that:-
a) Surrender of residential plots may be allowed by the Estate Officer concerned after forfeiting an amount upto 10% of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable. However, in the following cases, surrender without forfeiture of any amount may be accepted with the permission of the Chief Administrator:-
i) Where HUDA could not deliver the possession of plots due to litigation pending in the Court by the original land owners;
ii) Where plot is not actually available on the ground as per layout plan;
iii) Where the land is under unauthorized encroachment which cannot be easily removed and HUDA cannot deliver the possession; and
iv) Where the allottee could not pay the remaining amount of the cost or could not undertake construction on account of death of a dependent of the allottee.
For the purpose of calculation of interest and other dues payable, the date of application of surrender shall be the deemed date of surrender.
Sd/-
Administrative Officer, for Chief Administrator, HUDA .
Endst.No.A-11P-95/33952-55 A copy is forwarded to the following for information and necessary action: -
1. Legal Remembrance, HUDA, Panchkula.
2. Chief Town Planner, HUDA, Panchkula.
3. Chief Controller of Finance, HUDA, Panchkula.
4. Secretary, HUDA, Panchkula.
Sd/-
Administrative Officer, for Chief Administrator, HUDA Admittedly, in the instant case the plot which was allotted to the complainant was not available as per layout plan and for that reason in view of condition No.(ii) of the letter mentioned above, the complainant was refunded the entire deposited amount of Rs.2,63,199/- without any deduction. It is well settled principle of law that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of HUDA policy and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed by him in the complaint.
It is very strange that while disposing of the complaint, District Consumer Forum awarded relief to the complainant i.e. re-allotment of the plot, which was never the prayer of the complainant. It is also relevant to be mentioned here that after accepting the cheque dated 23.03.2004 worth Rs.2,63,199/-, the complainant has no further cause of action in his favour. Complainant ceased to be a consumer after surrender of the plot and taking the refund of the deposited amount as per HUDA policy. District Consumer Forum has erred by ordering for re-allotemnt of the plot, which was not the case of the complainant before the District Forum. Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 11.01.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member