District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 425/2022.
Date of Institution: 10.08.2022.
Date of Order:29.11.2023.
Ved Prakash son of Shri Godhu Ram R/o village & Post Office Baroli, Tehsil & District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Haryana Shahri vikas Pradhikaran, Sector-12, Faridabad through its Estate Officer, Faridabad.
2 The Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector-12, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
PRESENT: Sh. C.M.Kumar , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Kamal Bhati , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the opposite parties bid of auction of various residential plots in Sector-76, Faridabad and the complainant applied for purchasing the plot No. 100 area measuring 10 marlas situated at Sector-75, Faridabad online auction on 30.03.2022. The complainant paid online payment of Rs.3,11,000/- by transferring the said amount to account the opposite parties. On the same day the complainant reached the site at Sector-76, Faridabad on plot No. 100 then the complainant found that water storage tank was adjacent to the plot No. 100, Sector-76, Faridabad. On 31.03.2022 the complainant wrote a letter to the Administrator HSVP, Sector-12, Faridabad regarding the situation of the plot and also requested in this letter if the alternative plot was available on the same size in the same area the another alternative plot be allotted to the complainant because the Top/Round of water storage tank was 50 ft. in height the same would fallen on the plot No. 100, Sector-76, Faridabad. The said letter was received by the Administrator HUDA on 31.03.2022. On 31.03.2022 the complainant also handed over the letter to the Estate Officer, HSVP, Faridabad which was diaried at serial No. 3208/31.03.2022 regarding the situation of the plot No. 100 and also requested in this letter if the alternative plot was available on the same size in the same area then another alternative plot be allotted to the complainant because the Top Round of water storage tank was 50 ft. in height the same would fallen on the plot No. 100 Sector-76, Faridabad. The opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had submitted any reply nor any information was given to the complainant for allotment of the alternative plot in lieu of plot No.100, Sector-76, Faridabad nor the opposite parties had refunded the bid amount of Rs.3,11,000/- to the complainant till date. Now the opposite parties had finally refused to allot any other alternative plot in lieu of plot NO. 100, Sector-76, Faridabad to the complainant and the opposite parties had also refused to refund the bid money Rs.3,11,000/- to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) allot alternative plot in lieu of plot No. 100, Sector-76, Faridabad of the same size and in the same sector to the complainant
b) refund the bid amount of Rs.3,11,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of receiving till the date of realization of the same to the complainant.
c) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had not come to the Hon’ble Cout with clean hands and had concealed the material facts that the plot No. 100, Sector-76, Faridabad was put in auction on 30.03.2022 and the complainant claims that he participate in auction, but as per e0auction policy there was no provision to allot an alternative plot and the said plot No. 100 Sector-76, Faridabad was put in e-auction after verification from survey department and there was no litigation at the site. The complainant deposited only 5% i.e. Rs.3,10,000/- as per e-auction policy and his amount of Rs.3,10,000/- had already been forfeited as per policy and no approval had been issued from the head quarter because he had not submitted total 10% EMD on time so the plot not allotted to him. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A - affidavit of Shri Ved Prakashm, Ex.C-1 – payment status, Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 – letters Witten by the complainant to the Estate Officer, Administrator Ex. C-4 – letter dated 05.12.2022.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW-1/A – affidavit of Shri Nagendra (Clerk), Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-12, Faridabad.
5. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to; a) allot alternative plot in lieu of plot No. 100, Sector-76, Faridabad of the same size and in the same sector to the complainant b)refund the bid amount of Rs.3,11,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of receiving till the date of realization of the same to the complainant. c) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
6. The complainant applied for purchasing the plot No. 100 area measuring 10 marlas situated at Sector-75, Faridabad online auction on 30.03.2022. The complainant paid online payment of Rs.3,11,000/- by transferring the said amount to account the opposite parties vide Ex.C1. As per Ex.C-2 the complainant wrote a letter dated 31.02.2022 to the Administrator HSVP, Sector-12, Faridabad regarding the situation of the plot and also requested in this letter if the alternative plot was available on the same size in the same area the another alternative plot be allotted to the complainant because the Top/Round of water storage tank was 50 ft. in height the same would fallen on the plot No. 100, Sector-76, Faridabad. It is evident from Ex.C3, the complainant also handed over the letter dated 31.03.2022 to the Estate Officer, HSVP, Faridabad which was diaried at serial No. 3208/31.03.2022 regarding the situation of the plot No. 100 and also requested in this letter if the alternative plot was available on the same size in the same area then another alternative plot be allotted to the complainant because the Top Round of water storage tank was 50 ft. in height the same would fallen on the plot No. 100 Sector-76, Faridabad. The opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had submitted any reply nor any information was given to the complainant for allotment of the alternative plot in lieu of plot No.100, Sector-76, Faridabad nor the opposite parties had refunded the bid amount of Rs.3,11,000/- to the complainant till date. .
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, jointly & severally, are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,11,000/- alongwith interested @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realization. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 29.11.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
