Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 331
Instituted on : 26.05.2021
Decided on : 07.12.2023
Dayaram s/o Shri Ram R/o 739E Tilak Nagar, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant
Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Near Model School Rohtak, Haryana.
..........................Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Sandeep Kumar Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had got passed a site-plan of his house measuring 47.5 sq.yard in the year 2016, which was sold by the complainant due to the illness of his wife. The registry of the alleged house was to be done on 10.02.2021 .Complainant deposited all the documents for the purpose of new property ID and for uploading the same on NDC Portal on 12.01.2021 andthe same was to be completed within 15 days from the date of deposit of documents. The new property ID was prepared on 05.02.2021 wherein house tax amounting to Rs.623/- was pending and the same was deposited by the complainant immediately. But the same was not updated by the opposite party on the portal due to which he could not got NOC. The opposite party updated the same in April 2021 on the NDC portal due to which he could not got the registry of his house and suffered harassment. It is further submitted that at the time of passing the site-plan the development charges are got deposited by the department, which is taken one time. Complainant also deposited Rs.4711/- for the same but the opposite party again uploaded the alleged fee in the property ID of the complainant whereas the same is taken one time. It is also submitted that at the time of updating the site plan on the portal, the outstanding amount of Rs.11778/- was shown whereas the alleged charges were deposited by the complainant in the year 2016. It is prayed that the alleged additional development fee may kindly be waived off and compensation of Rs.200000/- on account of deficiency in service and harassment be awarded to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that no delay as negligence was ever made on the part of opposite party. It is incorrect that the opposite party did not update the site plan and copy of registry on NDC portal. It is submitted that complainant has to upload his documents on NDC portal and update the same within time. The complainant made a false complaint against the opposite party on Chief Minister Window, Rohtak. No delay was made on the part of opposite party. The House Tax branch uploaded the property I.D. on NDC portal whereas the property ID no.184C490U817 was in the name of Raj Bala and property ID no.184C490U817A is in the name of Tej Pal and pending present bill on previous property ID is Rs.593.23 and Rs.314.19 against the later property ID. It is admitted that M.C. take development charges only once. It is incorrect that the opposite party uploaded again the development charges against the property ID of the complainant. The complainant did not uploaded his required documents and did not updated within time. Complainant is not entitled for any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and has closed his evidence on dated 23.11.2023. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex. R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on dated 09.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that an amount of Rs.4711/- has been deposited by the complainant on 12.01.2016 on account of development charges, which is proved from the document Ex.C1(overleaf). But as per No dues Certificate Ex.C6, opposite party has shown Rs.4711/- as outstanding against development charges as on dated 12.07.2021. As per document Ex.C7, opposite party has again shown Rs.16448/- outstanding against development charges. Hence from the alleged documents, it is proved that opposite party demanded development charges thrice without any reason whereas the complainant has already deposited the development charges on 12.01.2016. It is also observed that as per reply filed by the opposite party, it is itself admitted by the opposite party that M.C. take development charges only once. But in the present case opposite party demanded development charges on different dates. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a.on Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.12.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender SinghKadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
