National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Huda vs Smt. Krishna Devi on 16 April, 2010
OP 10/1998
NATIONAL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 187
OF 2006
[Against
the order dated 14.10.2005 in First Appeal No. 455/2003 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh]
Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA),
through its Estate Officer,
HUDA,
Gurgaon.
Vs.
Smt. Krishna Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Sukhbir Singh,
F-121, Nanak Pura,
New Delhi.
Petitioner/Opposite
Party
Respondent/Complainant
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/Opposite Party
Mr. Prashant Kr.
Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent/Complainant
Mr. J.M.Singh,
Auth. Representative
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
Pronounced on : 16.04.2010
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA for short), who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (District Forum for short). The petitioner/opposite party is aggrieved with the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh (State Commission for short), whereby it has awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the deposits made by the respondent/complainant, even though it was a reduction from the 18% awarded by the District Forum, but it has also upheld the direction of the District Forum to charge the respondent/complainant at the same rate at which the original plot was allotted to her deceased/husband, namely, Sukhbir Singh.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of the respondent/complainant was first allotted plot no. 2558, measuring 135 sq. mtrs., in Sector 23/23-A, Gurgaon vide letter dated 11th of July, 1988. When the same plot fell under dispute, he was offered plot no. 32 in Sector-41, Gurgaon vide letter dated 7th of September, 1989 but at a higher rate of Rs.405/- per sq. mtr., which was accepted by the allottee and he paid Rs.47,970/- demanded by the petitioner/opposite party vide their letter dated 31st of July, 1993 towards the additional cost of the land.
He, however, expired on 31st of December, 1993. The respondent/complainant (widow of the allottee), however, came into the picture when the petitioner/opposite party issued letter dated 28th of June, 1994, offering possession of the plot, which necessitated her applying for transfer of allotment, which was duly accepted by the petitioner/opposite party vide their letter dated 25th of September, 1996. No arrears or additional demands for the price of the plot had been demanded at that time. When the possession certificate was to be given on the 30th of January, 1997, she was faced with the situation where a bigger size plot measuring 207.48 sq. mtrs. instead of 135 sq. mtrs. was given to her. The petitioner/opposite party had demanded Rs.86,542/- towards the enhanced price of the said plot which was also deposited by her. Meanwhile, in order to avail a housing loan by her son, who was a government employee, she requested for the transfer of the plot in his name. It was then that the petitioner/opposite party asked to pay Rs.1,18,056/- without any details. She, however, managed to pay Rs.1,10,441/- on 11th of May, 2000. Even thereafter the physical possession had not been given to her nor had the plot been transferred in favour of her son.
It was in this backdrop that she filed a complaint before the District Forum, who vide its order dated 2nd of December, 2002 directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of allotment till the date of physical possession and it further directed that if the respondent/complainant has already paid the penal interest, the same be refunded to her. Directing further that transfer certificate be issued in the name of her son Shri J.M. Singh, it also ordered that if the petitioner/opposite party has charged additional price of alternate plot, the same be revised at the rate at which the original allotment was made to the allottee. When the matter was taken up in appeal by the petitioner/opposite party before the State Commission, it disposed of the appeal reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 12%. Dissatisfied yet again, the petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party and the Authorized Representative of the respondent/complainant have been heard at length and the records perused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party has assailed the order directing the petitioner/opposite party to allot the alternate plot at the same rate at which the original plot, which fell under dispute, was allotted on the ground that once the original allottee had accepted the offer of alternate plot in Sector-41 at the higher rate of Rs.405/- per sq. mtr. and who has since expired, the present respondent/complainant has no locus standi to reopen the issue. The orders on this count passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission, therefore, are patently illegal. With regard to the allegation of the respondent/complainant that she has been made to pay penal interest and additional charges for no fault of her, the learned counsel has submitted that the additional demand was on account of default in payment of installments and on account of enhancement of price as also imposition of extension fee, as per the Rules of the Authority, and the same cannot be questioned before the consumer fora. Contending further, he has submitted that since the payments have already been made, the question of refund does not arise. He has further submitted that the plot in question having been transferred in favour of her son, the main grievance of the respondent/complainant stood satisfied and the revision petition deserves to be allowed as the order passed by the fora below are totally erroneous.
Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand has contended that the orders passed by the fora below are fully justified as even the policy regarding exchange of plots issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA vide circular dated 10th of December, 2007 also clearly states that alternate plot should be given on the same terms and conditions at which original plots are allotted. This case is governed under their own policy and, therefore, there was nothing illegal about the lower fora directing the petitioner/opposite party/HUDA to allot the plot at the original price. On the question of repeated additional demands made, the Authorized Representative of the respondent/complainant contends that no details were provided and the respondent/complainant was forced to deposit the demands as per their callings so as not to lose the plot, specially when her husband had expired, and it was her endeavour to save the plot at any cost.
Since the allottee had applied for a plot of only 135 sq. mtrs. and was forced to accept a plot of higher dimension, the petitioner/opposite party is not entitled to charge for the additional area and in any case they should not charge interest thereon. Further, since the physical possession of the plot had not been delivered till the intervention of this Commission, the question of charging interest from the date of offer of paper possession does not arise. In short, the Authorized Representative has fully justified the order passed by the fora below.
We have gone through the records of the case and have considered the arguments advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party and the Authorized Representative of the respondent/complainant. To the extent that deceased Sukhbir Singh (the original allottee) had accepted the alternate plot no. 32 in Sector 41 at a higher rate of Rs.405/- per sq. mtr., it must be held that the view taken by Fora below that the respondent/complainant would be entitled to the allotment of the alternate plot at the original price of Rs.213.06 per sq. mtr. cannot be sustained. We notice that the original allottee vide his letter dated 4th of October, 1989 had in categorical terms stated that residential plot no. 32 in Sector 41 of Gurgaon was acceptable to him and he had himself deposited the additional amount of Rs.47,970/- and the issue could not be reopened by the present respondent/complainant. The reference made to the policy circular dated 10th of December, 2007 would not be relevant as it specifically states that the policy will be made applicable with prospective effect even though it may cover the cases pending before any consumer fora. It will not come to the rescue of the respondent/complainant as, already stated, it will be hit by the principle of estoppel as the original allottee, her husband had accepted the offer. Besides, the complainant herself has made no such prayer in her complaint and the fora below have traveled beyond the prayer which cannot be sustained.
This brings us to the question as to whether the respondent/complainant is entitled to any relief on other counts, such as charging of penal interest and enhancement of cost as also extension fee.
We are constrained to observe that every time a request was made to the petitioner/opposite party/HUDA to transfer the plot in the name of the widow and subsequently to transfer it in the name of her son, the petitioner/opposite party/HUDA have responded only in terms of raising additional demands on one count or the other. Reference may be made to their letter dated 21st of September, 2000, which reads as under :-
From The Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon.
To Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Late Sukhbir Singh B-309, South Moti Bagh, New Delhi-21.
Memo No. 14090 Dated : 21/9/2000 Subject : Transfer of plot No. 32 Part-41, Gurgaon.
Ref.
: Your letter dated 22.8.2000 You are requested to deposit the balance amount of Rs.118056/- on account of instalment & Rs.61136/- on account of enhancement upto 7.9.2000 and time extension fee Rs.17761/- so that final Re-allotment letter could be issued.
Sd/-
Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon.
Endst.No. 14091 dated 21/9/2000 A copy of the above is forwarded to Sh.
J.M. Singh, F-121, Nanak Pura, New Delhi for information.
Sd/-
Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon.
The above letter is clearly in the nature of intimidating the respondent/complainant as it does not give any break up of Rs.1,18,056/-, in respect of which it is baldly stated that it is on account of installments, and so is the case with regard to the demand of Rs.61,136/-, which is purportedly on account of enhancement of cost upto 7.9.2000, and further the extension fee of Rs.17,761/-.
Even when this Commission directed them to come out with complete details of the figures as to how they were worked out no such statement has been filed. When the respondent/complainant while seeking transfer of the plot in her name after the death of her husband had clearly requested the petitioner/opposite party/HUDA to inform her in case any formalities and documentation is to be completed so that she could prepare herself for taking possession of the above plot, no indication whatsoever with regard to any default in payment/arrears was given to her. The plot was subsequently transferred in her name without a whisper with regard to any default of payment by her deceased husband or any other amount due from her. In this backdrop, we are surprised at the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party/HUDA that they would be entitled to charge penal interest more so when even the plot had not been physically handed over.
However, insofar as imposition of extension fee is concerned, in keeping with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA Vs. Sunita [(2005) 2 SCC 479], this Commission has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of extension fee.
The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed to the extent that the respondent/complainant would not be entitled to the allotment of the plot at the original rate of Rs.213.06 per sq. mtr.
Insofar as the rest of the relief awarded by the fora below is concerned, we direct the petitioner/opposite party/HUDA not to charge penal interest. If however the same has been charged and paid by the respondent/complainant, the same be refunded to the respondent/complainant with 12% interest per annum from the date of payment till its refund. We further impose Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
Sd/-
(B.N.P. SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/