APPEAL NO.1476 OF 2002



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

….…Appellant.

Versus



Ram Pal Majra son of Sh.Fateh Singh re-allottee of Plot No. 205, Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal VPO Nand Karan Majra, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

…. Respondent



BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.



Present: Ms.Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.



MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1. This is an appeal filed by the OP – HUDA , received on transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, against the order dated 11.12.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.347 of 2000.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh.Ram Pal Majra was reallotted a plot No.205, Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal vide reallotment letter No. EO-KTL/95/2970 dated 17.12.1996. It is further alleged that as per terms and conditions of the allotment/reallotment letter issued by OP No.1, the allottee was to deposit 25% of the cost of the plot at the time of allotment and remaining 75% was to be paid in lumpsum within 60 days of the allotment letter or in six equally annual installments. However the interest on installments shall accrue from the date of offer of possession. As per specific term No. 7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the site will be offered to the allottee/reallottee on the completion of development works in the area which includes the providing of road, water supply, electricity, sewerage and street light etc. i.e. basic necessities for the construction of new house. It is further alleged that OPs No.1 and 2 offered the possession of the plot in question vide memo No. K.O.-KTL/96/2185 dated 1.10.1996 but the previous allottee did not take the possession since the development works were not completed rather he transferred the same to the complainant with all rights and liabilities in the month of December, 1996. The complainant was to pay three installments of Rs.33,750/- each in the month of July, 1997, July, 1998 and July, 1999. The complainant visited the site of the plot in question and found that the development works were not completed and the possession of the plot was offered against the terms of the allotment/reallotment letters. There was no electricity in Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal in the year 1996 and the complainant submitted in writing to the OP No.1 not to charge the possession interest till the development works were completed. It is further alleged that the electricity was provided in Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal in June, 1999, due to this reason, the complainant could not start the construction work within the stipulated period of two years from the date of offer of possession meanwhile the cost of construction increased considerably and due to the delay, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. The OPs also cheated the complainant by charging the possession interest on the balance amount of installments. It is further prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of possession interest and extension fee along with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay escalation charges amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- which the complainant suffered due to delay in the construction, to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and to Rs.5500/- as litigation costs.

3. Reply has been filed by OPs No.1 and 2 i.e. HUDA in which it has been stated that the complainants have no locus-standi to file the complaint and the complainant has not come with clean hands before the Forum. The true facts are that the department has fulfilled all the liabilities relating to the development of the HUDA colony to all the allottees and after the delivery of possession of the plots, the HUDA Department is bound to recover the interest on the pending amount from all the allottees. The complainant put forward a false story to save the interest on the pending amounts which is legally imposed on the balance amount under the rules and regulations of the HUDA Act. The electricity was provided in June, 1999. The interest and extension fee is legal and according to the rules of HUDA Act. It is further prayed that the complaint is false and frivolous, so the same be dismissed with costs.

4. Reply filed by OP No.3 in which it has been stated that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the complainant has no concern with the answering respondent because the complainant is not a consumer. It is further submitted that OP No.3 is liable to rectify any defect or default of electricity on the complaint of HUDA, Kaithal and HUDA, Kaithal did not make any complaint for any default of electricity in the HUDA colony. It is further stated that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

5. The complainant and OP No.3 led their evidence in support of their contentions whereas no evidence was led by OPs No.1 and 2.

6. The District Forum passed a common order by accepting all the complaints with the conclusion that there was no electricity before June, 1999 in the said sector. The District Forum held that OPs offered the possession without providing any basic amenities and they charged possession interest on the remaining installments. So, the OPs are not entitled to recover the possession interest as it is clearly been recovered by the complainant and was ordered to be refunded with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum, HUDA has filed the present appeal in which it has been stated that the plot No. 205, Sector 20, Kaithal was reallotted in the name of complainant vide letter E.O. KTL/95/2970 dated 17.12.1996 and it was specifically mentioned in clause No. 7 of the reallotment letter that the possession of the site will be offered to the complainant on completion of the development works which includes providing of roads, water supply, electricity, sewerage and street light etc. The complainant was offered the possession of the plot vide memo No. EO/KTL/96/2185 dated 1.10.1996. The plot was reallotted in the name of present complainant on 17.12.1996. The grievance of the complainant is that electricity connection was not released and the same was released in June, 1999 and he has been cheated by the HUDA as they charged possession interest on the balance amount from July, 1996 to July, 1999. It has been submitted by the HUDA that the work of the electricity has been handed over to HSEB vide letter No. 172-173 dated 1.2.1996 and there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/HUDA. It is submitted by the appellant that if the complainant had any grievance regarding the electricity connection then HUDA is not liable because the electricity work is not the work of HUDA and is related to HSEB. It is submitted that the offer of possession has already been given to the complainant and thus complainant is bound to pay the possession interest to HUDA. The whole exercise of filing this complaint is only to harass and humiliate the appellant and to escape from the liability to pay the possession interest as well as extension fee and to extract money from HUDA. It is further submitted that there is no delay on the part of HUDA for providing the basic amenities to the complainant, so the compensation awarded to the complainant is unjustified and is liable to be set aside. It is prayed that order passed by the District Forum be set aside and the appeal be accepted with costs.

8. We have heard Ms.Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate for the appellant but none is present on behalf of respondent/complainant. The point for consideration before us is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of HUDA qua the complainant.

9. After the perusal of the record, it is pertinent to mention that the same issue has already been dealt with by this commission against the order of the District Forum in connecting appeals vide order dated 24.2.2009 whereby this commission had held that this contention of appellant was bereft of any merit. This commission further recorded that the documents placed on record by HUDA proved that there was no electricity in sector in question before June, 1999 while dealing with the contention of HUDA that the complainants were required to raise their grievances regarding the non provision of electricity before DHBVN as the work of electrification was entrusted to the electricity department. This commission further observed that the HUDA was required to provide the basic facilities and further there was no rule /regulation placed on record to show that the allottees were required to approach the electricity department. This commission further endorsed the direction of learned District Forum in waiving off possession interest and the extension fee before June, 1999 as the complainant was not provided facilities for construction of the house. The commission further upheld the view of learned District Forum in awarding a sum of Rs.30,000/- as escalation charges due to delay in constriction. The commission finally settling the issue of awarding interest @ 12% by the learned District Forum observed that the interest awarded by the District Forum was on the higher side and the same was reduced to 9%. With this modification, the appeals were dismissed.

9. The issue in the present case is same as was in the connected appeals earlier decided by this Commission. The order passed by this Commission is well reasoned and justified as deficiency in service on the part of OP qua the complainant is proved beyond any doubt. Therefore no interference is called for and we hereby dismiss the appeal devoid of any merit with the same directions had already been issued by this Commission in the connected cases.

10. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.