Haryana

Karnal

CC/171/2015

Kapur Singh S/o Tek Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Dogra

16 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No.171 of 2015

                                                  Date of instt.: 31.07.2015

                                                     Date of decision 16.10.2017

 

Kapur Singh son of Sh. Tek Singh, resident of House no.479, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                      ……..Complainant.

                                        Vs.

1.The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA Complex Sector-12 Karnal.

                                                                …… Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:- Shri  Vinod Dogra Adv. for complainant.

               Shri. Kawinder Singh for opposite parties.

                (though proceeded exparte)

 

                (JAGMAL SINGH PRESIDENT)

                                 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he has been allotted, in draw, a 14 Marlas plot bearing no.2385 in sector 32, Urban Estate, Karnal, vide Estate Officer letter no.22880 dated 4.12.2009. According to the clause 7 of the allotment letter the offer of possession letter could be issued to him after the completion of development works i.e. pucca metalled road, electricity, water supply and sewerage system, but the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal issued wrong letter of offer of possession, vide his office memo no.409 dated 9.11.2012, when there no development work of Sewerage System was completed in front of his plot. This fact was admitted by the Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal vide his letter no.8860 dated 23.4.2014 that the sewerage system was completed in front of the plot no.2385, sector-32 U.E.Karnal on 28.2.2014. He wrote so many letters to Estate Officer, Karnal and Chief Administrator Panchkula for withdrawal of the letter of offer of possession, but no fruitful results have achieved by him. He was under burden of unnecessary loss of interest of 15% per annum on the outstanding amount against the plot in question and on the other hand complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the deposited amounts from the date of expiry of three years of the allotment of plot to date of letter of offer of possession. There is great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. According to the information provided by the Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal vide his letter no.8860 dated 23.4.2014, the development work of sewerage system was completed on 28.2.2014. Hence the letter of offer of possession issued on 9.11.2012 earlier to 28.2.2014 is quite illegal and wrong.  Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; deficiency; mis joinder and non-joinder of parties; complainant is estopped himself from his own act and conduct; complaint is hopelessly time barred and complainant has suppressed the true and material fact and has not come with clean hands. On merits, it has been submitted that the opposite parties have offered the possession to the complainant after carry out the development work  by the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Karnal qua which report of the said Division received in the office of opposite party, vide memo no.22352 dated 17.10.2012 and thereafter in view of said memo, the opposite party issued letter for offer of possession to the complainant, vide memo no.409 dated 9.11.2012, but the complainant did not come forward to take physical possession. It has further been submitted that since the offer of possession has already been offered to the complainant well within time but complainant did not turn up to receive the possession and as such he is not entitled any interest. Hence there was no deficiency in service.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C24 and closed the evidence on 4.5.2016.

4.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into the evidence affidavit of Ashwani Malik HCS, Estate Officer Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and R2 and closed the evidence on 15.2.2017.

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

7.             From the pleadings of the case, it is clear that the parties have admitted that the complainant was allottee plot no.2381 in sector 32 Urban Estate, Karnal measuring 14 Marlas, vide allotment letter no.22880 dated 4.12.2009. The possession of the plot was offered, vide letter no.409 dated 9.11.2012. The complainant has challenged the letter of offer of possession dated 9.11.2012 on the ground that the possession of plot in question has been occurred without completing the development works. According to the complainant, the work of sewerage system in front of the plot in question was completed on 28.2.2014 as informed by the SPIO-cum- Executive Engineer, HUDA Division Karnal Ex.C3 whereas according to the opposite parties the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division Karnal, vide his letter no.22352 dated 17.10.2012 informed the opposite party no.2 that the work of water supply, sewerage and roads has been completed in front of the plots mentioned in the said letter. The number of the plot of the complainant i.e.2385 is included in the list of plots mentioned in the abovesaid letter. Thereafter, the possession of the plot in question was offered vide letter dated 9.11.2012. The learned counsel for opposite parties mainly contended that the letter of the offer of the possession is dated 9.11.2012 and the same has been challenged by the complainant by filing the present complaint, which was filed on 31.7.2015 i.e. after the period of limitation. In this regard he referred the provisions of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. According to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act the period of limitation for filing the complaint is two years. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act runs as under:

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

 

In the present complaint the letter of offer of possession has been challenged which is dated 9.11.2012. Hence the cause of action has been arose in favour of the complainant on 9.11.2012 i.e. when the letter of offer of possession has been issued. Therefore, present complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation of 2 years.  Complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.  No sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within time has been shown or explained by the complainant. Hence as per the provision of Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act the present complaint is beyond the limitation.  Hence the present complaint is not maintainable

8.             In view of above discussion, the present complaint does not succeed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.10.2017

                                                                        (Jagmal Singh)

                                                                           President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)         (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                 Member