State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Haryana Urban Development ... vs Tarsem Lal Goyal S/O Sh. Jai Bhagwan ... on 4 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1066 of 2011 Date of Institution: 04.08.2011 Date of Decision: 04.10.2012 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula. 2. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula. Appellants (Ops) Versus Tarsem Lal Goyal s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Goyal, r/o Railway Road, Narwana, District Jind. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for appellants. Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30.06.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panchkula whereby complaint filed by respondent-complainant was accepted and the directions given below were issued to the opposite parties:-
..the following directions are issued:-
i) Ops are directed to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of respective deposits to the date of giving him actual physical possession of the allotted plot after removing the unauthorized structure which is 7.2.2009 in the present case.
ii) The Ops are further directed not to charge extension fee for a period of two years from the date of offer of actual physical possession of the allotted plot to the complainant which in the present case is 7.2.2009.
iii) The Ops are further directed to refund the amount of possession-interest to the tune of Rs.80490/- and extension fee to the tune of Rs.8492/- alongwith 9% interest thereon from the date of respective deposits to its actual payment to the complainant.
iv) The Oops are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/-
for causing him unnecessary mental agony, harassment, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and on account of escalation in the prices of the building material as also the cost of litigation.
16. Let the present order be complied with by the Ops within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certificate copy of this order failing which the above awarded amount will carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereon as future interest.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the opposite parties allotted plot No.1961 Sector-28, Panchkula to one Poonam Bhardwaj vide allotment letter dated 30.04.2004 for a tentative price of Rs.8,62,150/-. The allottee paid 25% of the total tentative price and thereafter the above said plot was re-allotted in favour of the complainant who was making regular payments of the instalments. Opposite parties vide letter dated 23.6.2006 offered possession of the plot to the complainant. complainant visited the site and found that there was unauthorized structure on the plot in question besides the other four/five plots. Thereafter, the complainant vide his application dated 20.7.2009 approached the opposite parties to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot which was entered in the receipt register of the opposite party No.2 at Sr.No.220 dated 20.7.2009. Reminder dated 13.8.2009 was also given to the opposite parties. Instead of delivering the actual physical possession of the plot, the opposite parties demanded Rs.8492/- as extension fee from the complainant which was deposited on 2.3.2009. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the opposite parties could not charge interest on the balance instalments and wrongly charged the extension fee without delivering the actual physical possession of the plot. Under these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that as per clause 15 of the re-allotment letter dated 30.08.2004, the dispute was required to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chief Administrator. It was further stated that the complainant himself failed to obtain the possession in terms of the offer and applied for the possession only on 20.7.2009 and thus the possession was already taken by the complainant on 7.10.2009. The legal notice dated 11.09.2009 issued by the complainant was duly replied. 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 accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties has come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Admittedly, the plot in question was allotted to the complainant and thereafter offer of possession was given vide letter dated 23.6.2006. It has come on the record that the complainant visited the plot and found that there was encroachment on the plot in question and for that reason the complainant approached the opposite parties vide letter dated 20.7.2009 and reminder dated 13.8.2009. But instead of redressal of the grievance of the complainant, the opposite parties demanded the extension fee and also continued to charge interest on the instalments amount. District Consumer Forum taking into account the fact and circumstances of the case has rightly allowed the complaint by issuing the directions vide impugned order which is under challenge in this appeal. In this case the opposite parties had given information under the Right to Information Act vide different replies that the structure was existing over the site of the plot which was removed on 15.09.2009. Meaning thereby, before 15.09.2009 the actual physical possession of the plot in question was not possible and the offer of possession to the complainant in the year 2006 was a paper possession. Possession Certificate vide Memo No.S.9575 dated 7.10.2009 (Annexure C/8) has been produced on the record. The letter issued by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula vide Memo No.16334 dated 19.10.2009 depicts that the existing structure in part area of plot No.1961 Sector-28, Panchkula was removed and possession was delivered to the complainant on 07.10.2009. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it 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 04.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member