State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
H I M U D A vs Sh. Sanjay Kumar. on 14 May, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.390/2014
Date of Presentation: 11.11.2014
Date of Decision: 14.05.2015
................................................................................
Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority
(HIMUDA), Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2, H.P.,
Through its CEO-cum-Secretary.
... Appellant.
Versus
Sanjay Kumar, son of Shri O. P. Aggarwal,
Resident of B-165, Sector-3, New Shimla,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
... Respondent.
.....................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: None.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate.
................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant's grievance is against the order dated 07.08.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent, Sanjay Kumar Garg, has been partly allowed and direction given to it (the appellant) to 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? HIMUDA Versus Sanjay Kumar (F.A. No.390/2014) extend the benefit of 10% rebate in the price of plot allotted to him and also to pay damages and litigation expenses, quantified at `25,000/-.
2. Respondent filed a complaint alleging that pursuant to an advertisement got published by the appellant, he applied for allotment of a plot, measuring 148.25 square metres in Phase-III, Below BCS, New Shimla. It was alleged that on his depositing a sum of `1,96,700/-, as earnest money, a plot was allotted to him, vide letter dated 22.09.2004, Annexure C-1. It was stated that as per brochure of the scheme, under which plot was allotted to him, 10% rebate was to be given to all those allottees, who paid the price of plot in lump-sum. It was alleged that respondent paid the price in lump-sum and was, therefore, entitled to 10% rebate, but that rebate was not given to him, when balance amount was demanded from him, through letter dated 28.06.2007. He alleged that he sought clarification with respect to the rebate of 10%, through letter dated 04.01.2008, in response to which he was informed, through letter dated Page 2 of 7 HIMUDA Versus Sanjay Kumar (F.A. No.390/2014) 29.01.2008, copy Annexure R-3 that condition regarding allowing of rebate had been deleted, because as per scheme, the plot was to be given on leasehold basis, but actually it had been offered on full ownership basis.
3. Respondent further alleged that price `8,717/- per square metre, had been demanded from him and some other allottees, but many other allottees had been asked to pay the price at the rate of `8,037/- per square metre.
4. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, respondent prayed for issuance of directions to the appellant to give rebate of 10% on the total price of the plot and also to refund the extra price charged, i.e. the difference between the amount of `8,037/- per square metre, the rate at which some other allottees were charged and `8,717/- per square metre, at which rate the respondent was charged.
5. Complaint was contested by the appellant. It was stated that price had rightly been charged at the rate of `8,717/- per square metre because an extra retaining wall had to be Page 3 of 7 HIMUDA Versus Sanjay Kumar (F.A. No.390/2014) constructed for the protection of respondent's plot. As regard the claim of 10% rebate, appellant pleaded that as per letter of allotment and brochure, condition No.9 (vii) of which speaks of rebate, the plot was to be allotted on leasehold basis, but later, it was decided to allot the plot on freehold basis with full ownership and, therefore, the condition regarding giving of 10% rebate in the price to those allottees, who paid the price in lump-sum, had been done away with. It was stated that this decision stood conveyed to the respondent, vide letter dated 29.01.2008, Annexure R-3. Also, it was pleaded that complaint was belated and barred by time.
6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has rejected the respondent's claim for refund of the price charged in excess of the rate of `8,037/- per square metre. However, the claim regarding rebate at the rate of 10%, has been allowed and a sum of `25,000/- has been ordered to be paid by the appellant, on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Learned Page 4 of 7 HIMUDA Versus Sanjay Kumar (F.A. No.390/2014) District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint, as aforesaid.
7. We have gone through the record and heard learned counsel for the respondent. Nobody appears for the appellant.
8. Cause of action accrued to the respondent on 29.01.2008, when he was informed in response to his letter dated 04.01.2008, copy Annexure C-4, through letter dated 29.01.2008, copy Annexure R-3, that price at the rate of `8,717/- had been charged in respect of his plot, as also plots of some other allottees because a retaining wall had been constructed for protection of those plots and the price was charged at the rate of `8,037/- in respect of some other plots, where such retaining wall had not been provided. Also, the respondent was informed that clause pertaining to 10% rebate had been deleted for the reason that instead of transferring the plot on leasehold basis, it had been offered to be transferred on freehold basis with full ownership rights. That means, respondent came to know on 29.01.2008 that the appellant had withdrawn the Page 5 of 7 HIMUDA Versus Sanjay Kumar (F.A. No.390/2014) condition regarding 10% rebate in the price and extra price had been charged in respect of his plot, because of construction of retaining wall. He took no steps to seek redressal of his grievance within a period of two years, from the date of receipt of letter Annexure R-3. He filed the complaint in December, 2010, or say more than eleven months, after the expiry of two years period of limitation and, thus, his complaint was barred by time, when filed. Objection was raised by the appellant with regard to limitation, but learned District Forum has not even touched it, leave alone, giving any definite finding qua this issue.
9. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in the claim for rebate, which has been allowed by the learned District Forum. It is not in dispute that as per initial letter of allotment, the respondent was to be given the plot on leasehold basis. But actually the plot has been given to him on freehold basis. That means, instead of being conveyed the title as lessee, respondent has been conveyed the title as owner. It is because of the Page 6 of 7 HIMUDA Versus Sanjay Kumar (F.A. No.390/2014) conveyance of larger title than agreed that the condition of rebate of 10% in the price has been done away with and this position was explained to the respondent, through letter dated 29.01.2008, copy Annexure R-3.
10. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 14, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 7 of 7