Haryana

Faridabad

cc/132/2014

Mrs. Madhu Gupta w/o Shri R.P. Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint No. 132/2014.

Date of Institution: 26.5.2014.

Date of Order: 21.3.2016.

Mrs. Madhu Gupta w/o Shri R.P. Gupta, 780/6, Mehrauli, New Delhi – 110 030.

                              ……………….Complainant

          Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Mini Secretariat, Sector-12, Faridabad.

                          …………….……Opposite p

  Complaint under section-12 ofConsumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      S.K.Kaushik………………….. President

Rajbir Singh Dhariwal ………Member.           

Aneeta Pratap Singh …………………………Member.

PRESENT:     Complainant in person.

             Shri N.K. Tanwar, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:

             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.1144, Sector-46, Faridabad vide letter No. 396 dated 17.1.1991 and its possession was given to her by opposite party vide letter No. 1498 dated 13.7.1994

                      :2:

effective from 21.5.1994 but opposite party citing reason of litigation offered alternative plot to the complainant vide letter no.546 dated 27.5.1998 so the complainant gave her consent vide letters dated 12.6.1998 and 4.7.1998. Thereafter draw of said plot was held on 12.8.1998 and the complainant was allotted plot No. 188G, Sector-46 but the complainant did not receive any allotment letter so she requested opposite party to issue allotment letter through registered letters dated 3.1.2000 and 27.11.2001 but she did not receive reply. The complainant vide memo No. 30174 dated 29.7.2002 received show cause notice under section 17(3) of HUDA Act, 1997 from opposite party wherein an amount of Rs.6000/- towards non construction and non payment of extension fees was demanded and the complainant vide letter dated 23.8.2002 had replied stating that said charges could not be levied as allotment letter of alternative plot as well as possession thereof was not given to her to which  opposite party replied vide letter No. 33496 dated 28.8.2002 (wrongly written as 28.8.2012) without mentioning anything about allotment letter or possession letter of alternative plot. The complainant sent reminder vide letter dated 28.9.2002 but the complainant received show cause notice bearing no.39722 dated 18.10.2002 wherein aforesaid amount was demanded

                      :3:

to which she replied vide letter dated 17.10.2002 and the complainant received its reply from opposite party vide letter no. 49421 dated 3.12.2002 stating that allotment letter of alternative plot had been issued on 30.12.1999 as well as photocopy of the same was sent on 29.11.2001 upon which the complainant replied denying the receipt of said letter. Opposite party again issued show cause notice vide No. 29814 dated 7.10.2005 demanding extension fee of Rs.33000/- to which the complainant replied vide letter dated 13.10.2005 and thereafter she sent various letters dated 13.8.2007, 25.8.2007, 17.9.2007, 5.10.2007, 12.11.2007, 7.1.2008 and 21.2.2008. Ultimately opposite party offered possession of said plot to the complainant vide memo no. 37371 dated 23.12.2009 specifying that said letter was issued in lieu of earlier plot issued vide No.396 dated 17.1.1991. The complainant had informed opposite party vide letter dated 7.9.2013 that extension fee was payable for the period after 23.12.2011 as possession was offered on 23.12.2009 and the complainant had requested to provide her the amount of extension fee payable by taking into account 90% rebate for women allottees as per HUDA policy but despite reminder dated 25.9.2013 opposite party did not send reply. The complainant received details of extension fees only through her application under RTI Act vide No. 29 dated

                      :4:

1.1.2014 which revealed that extension fee was calculated taking the date of offer of possession as 30.12.1999 instead of 23.12.2009 and due to wrong calculation amount of extension fee was shown Rs.89584/- by opposite party. The complainant had not received any demand of extension fee from opposite party till filing of the complaint whereas website of opposite party showed without any details outstanding extension fee amount of Rs.303136/- against the complainant. In reply to opposite party’s letter No. 29 dated 1.1.2014 the complainant vide letter dated 10.1.2014 pointed out the discrepancy in calculation of extension fees and had requested opposite party to send the correct extension fee but despite reminder dated 29.1.2014 opposite party did not reply. Opposite party had collected Rs. 253120.68 against balance amount of Rs.231397.50 from the complainant as advised by opposite party vide original allotment letter No. 396 dated 17.1.1991. The excess amount including interest for option of paying in installments with interest was applicable from the date of possession. The complainant had made payment of last installment on 16.1.1997 while opposite party had offered possession of plot only on 23.12.2009 so opposite party was liable for payment of interest for the delayed period. The complainant vide letter dated 12.3.2014 gave final notice to opposite

                      :5:

party to correct extension fee.  The complainant prayed for directing opposite party to correct extension fee based on the letter of offer of possession dated 23.12.2009 and no extension fee was payable by the complainant till the date of advise of current extension fee as well as to refund interest amount of Rs.21723.18 charged from the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainant as cost of plot till the date of offer of possession i.e. 23.12.2009 besides to pay litigation expenses in addition to suitable compensation on account of mental agony to the complainant.

2.       Upon receipt of the complaint notice was sent to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein opposite party refuted claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections such as the Forum had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.  The complaint was false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable. The complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant was allotted said plot vide no. 396 dated 17.1.1991 containing entire terms and conditions subject to provisions of HUDA Act, 1997 as well as rules and regulations made there under. As the possession of said plot was not handed over to the complainant due to some unavoidable circumstances

                 :6:

so the complainant was asked to give consent regarding change of plot vide memo no. 546 dated 27.5.1998 and the same was given by the complainant on 11.6.1998 in the shape of affidavit. Thereafter the complainant tendered another undertaking affidavit on 10.7.1998 and alternate said plot was allotted vide letter No. 5632 dated 30.12.1999 alongwith offer of possession.  The reply to the letter of the complainant dated 27.11.2001 was sent vide no.6082 dated 6.12.2001 stating that exchange letter of alternative plot was already issued on 30.12.1999 and a photocopy of the same was also enclosed.  The show cause notice dated 29.7.2002 was issued as the complainant had failed to raise construction within time. The letters sent by the complainant were duly replied by opposite party. The physical possession of said alternate plot was taken by the complainant vide memo No.1407 dated 4.4.2011. The complainant vide application dated 5.7.2013 had requested to organize conveyance deed registration of said plot which was duly considered and replied by opposite party vide memo No. 17373 dated 16.7.2013. Thereafter deed of conveyance was executed on 21.10.2013.

             On merits, it was submitted that the complainant never came forward to take physical possession of said plot and thereafter in the year 1995

                      :7:

ban was imposed on construction in five kilometer area from Surajkund to Badkhal and as plot no.1144, Sector-46 fell in the radius of 5 kilometers so opposite party decided to put allottees into draw of plots, therefore, the complainant was asked to give consent for alternative plot. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3.       In support of her claim, the complainant placed on record her own supporting Affidavit wherein she repeated the same facts which are mentioned in the complaint and placed on record following documents:

The photocopies of:

Annx-1 – Allotment letter dated 17.1.1991

Annx.II, IX – Offer of possession dated 13.7.1994, 28.8.2002

Annx. III. – letter No. 3522 dated 15.12.1997

Annx.IV & V– letters dated 27.5.1998 and 12.6.1998 regarding exchange of plot

Annx. VI to VIII(1)- letters

Annx.Viii(ii),X, XII(11), XiV,XV show cause notice dated 23.8.2002, 28.9.2002, 8.10.2002, 7.10.2005, 13.10.2005

Annx.XI(i)  -

Annx.XI1,XIII – letters

Annx. XVII to XXII-  Reminders of show cause notice

                 :8:

Annx.XXIII – Memo No. 37371 dated 23.12.09

Annx.XXIV, XXV, XXVI,XXIX,XXX – letters dated 7.9.2013, 25.9.2013, 1.1.2014, 10.1.2014,  29.1.2014

Annx. XXX – Final notice dated 12.3.2014.

4.           Shri Rajan Kumar, Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-12, Faridabad placed on record his affidavit in which he enumerated the same facts which are written in the written statement and relied on the following documents: -

Photocopies of

Ex.R1 – Allotment letter dated 17.1.1991

Ex.R2,R3,R5, R7, R8, R9, R12, R14, R15 – letter dated 27.5.1998, 12.6.1998, 4.7.1998, 30.12.1999,6.12.01, 28.8.2002, 3.12.2002, 17.12.2009, 26.7.2013

Ex.R4, R6 – Affidavit

Ex.R9, R11, R13 – Show cause notice dated 29.7.2002, 8.10.2002, 7.10.2005

Ex.R16 – Possession certificate

Ex.R17, R18, R19, R20, R21 – letter dated 5.7.2013, 16.7.2013,  11.9.2015, 1.1.2014, 26.8.1987

Photocopy of letters dated 11.11.91, 8.2.1996, 1.12.97, 14.7.1998, 2.4.2009, 5.11.1999, 16.9.2002, 17.12.2004, 9.2.2006, 13.10.06, 29.1.2007, 28.4.2007, 2.7.2007, 15.1.2009, 12.11.2013.

 

 

:9:         

5.       We have heard the complainant in person and Shri N.K. Tanwar, counsel for opposite party and also have gone through the written arguments of the complainant as well as have perused the case file carefully.

6.       There is no dispute as to the fact that the complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.1144, Sector-46, Faridabad by opposite party vide letter No. 396 dated 17.1.1991 and opposite party vide letter No.546 dated 27.5.1998 Ex R2 offered alternative plot with the same terms and conditions through draw of lots to the complainant with the condition that higher rate amongst original plot and alternative plot would prevail and in case of higher rate interest would be allowed on earlier deposits made by the allottee upon which the complainant vide affidavit dated 1.7.1998 Ex R6 gave her consent to pay the difference in amount of new alternative plot, if any, after adjustment of deposited amount and interest accrued therein and opposite party vide letter 33496 dated 28.8 2002 demanded extension fees of Rs. 6000/- from the complainant.

7.           It is evident from aforesaid letter dated 27.5.1998 Ex R2 that opposite party was liable to adjust interest on deposited amount in case of higher rate of alternative plot. Opposite party vide letter

                 :10:

dated 28.8.2002 Ex. R10 has demanded extension fees of Rs. 6000/- only from the complainant whereas the complainant has not placed on record any cogent evidence to prove that opposite party had raised  demand for higher rate. So the plea of the complainant to direct opposite party to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainant as cost of plot is devoid of merits and is not liable to be paid by opposite party.

8.           It is ample clear from clause 6 of allotment letter no. 396 dated 17.1.1991 that in case the balance payment of Rs.231397/- was made in six annual instalments then each instalment would be recoverable together with interest, accrued from the date of offer of possession, on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount.

9.           The complainant in her complaint has admitted that possession of plot bearing no.1144, Sector-46, Faridabad was given to her by opposite party vide letter No. 1498 dated 13.7.1994. So the complainant was liable to pay aforesaid interest. As the complainant has not placed on record any document to prove that opposite party had over charged interest from the complainant so the demand of the complainant for refund of interest amount of Rs.21723.18 is without any merit. 

 

                      :11:

10.          Admittedly the complainant had given her consent for acceptance of alternative plot in lieu of her earlier allotted plot no.1144, Sector-46, Faridabad vide affidavit dated 1.7.1998 Ex R6 but opposite party has failed to prove with any cogent evidence such as postal receipts that allotment letter of alternative plot bearing no. 188G, Sector-46, Faridabad sent by opposite party vide letter no. 5632 dated 30.12.1999 alongwith offer of possession was received by the complainant.

11.      It is also evident from the records put up before the Forum that the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of aforesaid allotment letter on 17.12.2009 Ex. R14 at the time of submission of letter for taking possession of alternative plot. Therefore, opposite party was entitled to charge extension fee after two years from 17.12.2009 instead of 30.12.1999 from the complainant by granting her rebate, being woman, in accordance with the circular issued vide memo no. A-1(P)-2007/3265-86 dated 29.01.2007 mentioned at sr. no.ii(B)(iv) of letter dated 12.4.2013 Ex. R19.

12.      As such opposite party rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.

13.     Opposite party is directed to charge extension fee of the plot in question from the complainant after

                 :12:

two years from 17.12.2009 and to grant her rebate, being woman, in accordance with the circular issued vide memo no. A-1(P)-2007/3265-86 dated 29.01.2007 as well as to pay Rs. 2200/- on account of mental tension besides harassment in addition to Rs.1100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced on: 21.3.2016            (S.K.KAUSHIK)

                                                     President

                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                           Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

                

                              (Rajbir Singh Dhariw

                                   Member        

                     District Consumer Disputes

                  Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

 

                      (Aneeta Pratap Singh)

                              Member

              District Consumer Disputes

              Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESENT:     Complainant in person.

             Shri N.K. Tanwar, counsel for opposite party.

    Arguments heard. Vide separate order of even date, the complaint has been accepted. File be consigned to the record room.

 

                                   (S.K.KAUSHIK)

                                      President

                          District Consumer Disputes

              Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

                                21.3.2016

 

                     (Rajbir Singh Dhariwal)

                            Member  

                 District Consumer Disputes

      Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

                         

      (Aneeta Pratap Singh)

                Member

  District Consumer Disputes

  Redressal Forum, Faridabad.