Forum : Sabarkantha

Heading1

Heading2

Complaint Case No. 99/17

1. Karnail Singh

Badsui,Guhla,Kaithal

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. HUDA

Kaithal

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MRS. Harish Mehta MEMBER

For the Opp. Party: SH.Joginder Dhull, Advocate

Dated : 02 Jan 2018

Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint No.99/2017.

Date of instt.: 10.04.2017.

Date of Decision:11.01.2018.

Karnail Singh s/o Shri Krishan Pal, r/o Badsui, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

???.Complainant.

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal.

Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (HR).

..??..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

Shri Joginder Dhull, Adv. for the OPs.

ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is allottee of residential Plot No.81 measuring 90 sq mtr (04 marla), Mandi Township, Guhla bearing Memo No.z0004/E0007/UE015/GALOT/0000000864. It is further alleged that as per term No.7 of Allotment Letter, the OPs were bound to offer the possession of the aforesaid plot to him after completing the development works in the area of aforesaid plot, but the OPs failed to develop the area within the stipulated period of three years. It is further alleged that the OPs have offered the possession of plot vide letter dt. 02.11.2015 i.e. much after the lapse of stipulated period of three years. It is further alleged that he requested many times to withdraw the offer to OPs and not to charge the possession interest till the development of the area and to pay interest over the entire deposited amount from 30.5.14 till the development of area, but OPs flatly refused to do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus-standi; time barred; jurisdiction and that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true & material facts from this Forum. The true & material facts of the complaint are that the OPs would offered the possession of the plot bearing No.81 measuring 4 marla, vide Allotment No.z0004/E0007/UE015/GALOT/0000000864 dt. 31.5.2011 to the complainant after completion of the all basic amenities i.e. habilitation/dwelling like electricity, sewerage, drinking water, rainy water, drainage, roads lane, street light in the Sector R-4 MTS Guhla at Urban Estate, HUDA, Kaithal; that complainant has filed the present complaint with a view to save the possession interest and to delay the construction over the possession. On merits, all the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.

3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2 and closed evidence on 27.9.2017. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Mark R1 & Mark R2 and closed evidence on 11.12.2017.

4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant was allottee of plot in question vide Memo No.z0004/E0007/UE015/GALOT/0000000864. It is further argued that since the allotment, installments and other dues has been paid towards the aforesaid plot to OPs, as per term No.7 of Allotment Letter, the OPs were bound to offer the possession of the aforesaid plot to him after completing the development works in aforesaid plot, but the OPs failed to develop the area within the stipulated period of three years. It is further argued that the OPs have offered the possession of plot vide letter dt. 02.11.2015. It is further argued that the complainant requested many times to withdraw the offer to OPs and not to charge the possession interest till the development of the area and to pay interest over the entire deposited amount from 30.5.14 till the development of area, but OPs flatly refused to do so.

6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the OPs have offered the possession of the plot to the complainant after the completion of basic amenities i.e. habilitation/dwelling like electricity, sewerage, drinking water, rainy water drainage, roads lane and street light etc.

7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the plot in question was allotted on 31.5.2011 to the complainant vide letter Annexure C1. It is admitted case of the parties that the possession of the plot has been offered by the OPs on 02.11.2015 vide letter Annexure C-2. But the allegation of complainant is that the OPs have offered the possession without completing the basic amenities. To prove the fact that the basic amenities have been provided, the OPs have placed on file affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-R1 & Mark-R2. The complainant has not placed on the file any document or report except his affidavit which could prove that the basic amenities have not been provided by the OPs. So, the contention of Ops that the basic amenities of water supply, sewerage, drainage, roads, electricity and street light have been provided have force. Thus, in view of these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the necessary basic amenities have been provided by the OPs in the vicinity of plot of the complainant. 8. Now coming on the contention of complainant that the possession was not offered within the period of three years from the date of allotment i.e. 31.5.2011 as per term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter and we found force in this contention of complainant. It is admitted by the Ops that the possession was offered on 02.11.2015. So, the possession was offered after the period of three years. As per condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of plot was to be offered within the period of 3 years from the date of allotment after completing the development works in the area. The condition No.7 runs as under:-

?7. The possession of the plot will be offered within a period of 3 years from the date of allotment after completion of development work in the area. In case possession of the plot is not offered within the prescribed period of 3 years from the date of allotment, HUDA will pay interest @ 9% (or as may be fixed by Authority from time to time) on the amount deposited by you after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession and you will not be required to pay the further installments. The payment of the balance installments will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to you?.

9. In the present case, the possession of plot in question was offered on 02.11.2015 to the complainant, whereas the same should have been offered within 3 years from the date of allotment i.e. 31.05.2011. Therefore, the possession was not offered within the period of 3 years as mentioned in the condition No.7 of allotment letter. In view of this condition, we are of the considered view that the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 9% after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession on the amount deposited by the complainant. Therefore, the OPs have not complied with the condition No.7 of allotment letter, as mentioned above, hence, they are deficient while rendering services to the complainant and thus, the complainant is entitled for the interest from the date of allotment till the date of offer of possession.

8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay interest @ 9% from 31.5.2014 to 02.11.2015 to the complainant on the amount deposited regarding the plot in question upto 31.5.2014 and further not to claim extension fee and interest on the remaining installments for the period i.e. from 31.05.2014 to 02.11.2015. However, the OPs are at liberty to claim charges including interest and extension fees as per their rules and regulations except the period w.e.f. 31.05.2014 to 02.11.2015. The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.11.01.2018.

(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),

Member. Presiding Member.

Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

Shri Joginder Dhull, Adv. for the OPs.

Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Dated:11.01.2018. Member Presiding Member.

[HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh]

PRESIDING MEMBER

[HON'BLE MRS. Harish Mehta]

MEMBER