Haryana

StateCommission

A/1620/2017

G.D.GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

G.D.GUPTA

23 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                                                Date of Institution: 28.12.2017

                                                          Date of final hearing: 26.04.2023

Date of pronouncement: 23.05.2023

 

 

First Appeal No.1620 of 2017

 

 

In the matter of:-

 

G.D. Gupta, Advocate, age about 74 years, son of Sh. Kishan Chand, Advocate, 1308, Mangat Pura, Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

…..Complainant/Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-17, Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.      Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

 

Argued by:-         Sh. G.D. Gupta, appellant in person.

                             Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                ORDER

 

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 04 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      Unsuccessful appellant is in appeal. His complaint No. 296 of 2014 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (In short “District Commission”) vide order dated 22.11.2017. Legality of this order has been questioned by appellant in present appeal.

3.      Complainant/appellant was initially allotted 4 marla plot No. 533 in Sector 18 HUDA Jagadhari by OP/respondent No. 1 vide letter No. 6702 dated 14.07.1994. After about 4½ years; OP No.1 intimated him vide letter No. 203 dated 14.01.1999 that Plot No. 533 has come under ‘writ’ so HUDA decided to allot alternate plot to him.  Alternate plot No. 536 was allotted to him by OP No. 1 vide letter 5706 dated 10.08.1998. During this period; cost of construction escalated. He filed complaint before District Forum, Yamuna Nagar on 03.03.2000 which was decided on 11.01.2002. HUDA was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of escalation of cost of construction plus Rs.2000/- as litigation cost plus 15% interest on amount of each installment, deposited by him, till date of offer of possession. HUDA preferred appeal before State Consumer Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2006. HUDA complied with order of District Forum on 31.12.2007. Against order dated 18.09.2006 HUIDA preferred Revision Petition (640 of 2007) before Hon’ble National Consumer Commission which was dismissed as infructuous on 09.01.2012.

4.      Subsequently, OP No. 1 demanded Rs.45,032.95/- from him as enhanced compensation vide its letter No. 6512 dated 27.01.2002. He filed another complaint before District Forum, Yamuna Nagar on 16.04.2003. Vide order dated 07.09.2005; Ops were directed to handover possession of plot in question to him.  He requested OP No. 1 on 14.11.2005 to deliver him physical possession of plot. OP No. 1 vide letter No. 4837 dated 21.12.2005 insisted on payment prior to delivery of possession. HUDA insisted for depositing Rs.1,87,871/- vide letter No. 4365 dated 06.08.2012. He deposited Rs. 1,87,900/- on 13.08.2012 under protest.  On 06.09.2012 he submitted non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.7,245/-. HUDA was not ready to execute conveyance deed, so he served legal notice dated 26.09.2012. Only thereafter, conveyance deed was registered in his name on 12.11.2012.  (Note: Conveyance deed was made non 06.11.2012 but registered on 12.11.2012 vide Vasika No. 7426).

5.      He decided to transfer of plot to someone else and sought permission from OP No.1 which was granted vide letter No. 5662 dated 08.11.2012.   He served legal notice dated 12.05.2014 to Ops for seeking refund of Rs.1,87,900/- with 18% interest from 13.08.2012 till its actual payment, but there was no response. He has alleged that he was consumer of Ops, on the date of registration of conveyance deed in his name (06.11.2012) and on the date (08.11.2012) when permission to transfer of plot was granted to him and there was deficiency in service of OPs so complaint is within limitation of 2 years. He has prayed for refund of Rs.1,87,900/- with 18% interest, illegally recovered from him from 13.08.2012 till payment and adequate compensation for causing undue mental agony harassment and cost of litigation.  

6.      OPs raised contest. In their defence, it is asserted that there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties. Actual outstanding amount as per letter No. 4365 dated 06.08.2012 was demanded from complainant in which it was mentioned that permission for transfer of plot could only after settlement of account finally, to avoid unnecessary harassment to proposed transferee.  It was also stated in letter that if complainant is not satisfied he can file appeal against said demand before Administrator HUDA Panchkula. Complainant opted to deposit due outstanding amount and thereafter he sold said plot vide registered sale deed No. 7487 dated 16.11.2012. Hence, complainant is not a consumer. He has no right title or interest in the plot. It is pleaded that Plot No. 533 along with other land was acquired by Land Acquisition Panchkula for HUDA. Plot No. 533 Sector 18 was allotted to complainant vide allotment letter No. 6702 dated 04.07.1994. Later on, alternate plot No. 536 was allotted to him vide letter No. 5706 dated 10.07.1999; because Plot No. 533 was challenged under Writ  bearing CWP No. 6731 of 2003. Possession of Plot No. 536 was offered vide letter no. 6325 dated 15.09.1999.  Complainant has already filed consumer case No. 98 of 1997 decided on 21.05.2001; consumer case No. 87 of 2000 decided on 11.01.2002; consumer case no. 182 of 2003 decided on 07.09.2005. Now he has filed complaint on false grounds which is not maintainable.  In reply to complainant’s application dated 14.11.2005; OP No. 1 asked him to apply for possession certificate on proper proforma which was enclosed with letter No. 4837 dated 21.12.2005. Complainant never came present in person or through his authorized representative for possession, along with prescribed proforma before OP No. 1 so, in absence of physical presence of complainant as well as proper proforma for possession certificate OP No. 1 has been unable to handover physical possession of said plot to him on spot. It is complainant who is at fault. It is his duty to deposit all outstanding amounts due against the plot, but even after repeated demand, he had not deposited outstanding dues, on one protest to another with malafide intention. Later on, he deposited amount on 13.08.2012. Inter-alia on these pleas dismissal of complaint has been prayed.

7.      Parties to this lis led their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary before learned District Commission.

8.      On subjectively analyzing the evidence; learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 22.11.2017 has dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost.

9.      Feeling aggrieved, complainant has filed this appeal.

10.    I have heard complainant in person, as well as learned counsel for opposite parties at length. Record too has been perused.  Appellant/complainant has urged that he continued to remain consumer of respondents/OPs on basis of conveyance deed dated 06.11.2012 executed in his favour by HUDA, and registered on 12.11.2012 vide Vasika No. 7426; on basis of permission granted to him to transfer the plot.  Hence as per contention, if there is any deficiency in service of Ops, he can agitate the matter within two years i.e. up to 08.11.2014. He filed compliant on 08.07.2014.  Thus, it is urged that on 08.07.2014 (day of filing complaint) he remained consumer of OPs as period of two years was still in force, reckoned from date (08.11.2012) when permission was granted to him to sell the plot. It is urged that demand of Rs.1,87,871/- confronted upon him by OPs, in between, was totally illegal and only on forcible assistance on the part of OPs, he deposited that amount on 13.08.2012 under protest. He can definitely agitate this illegal demand in the forum of District Consumer Commission by filing complaint.  It is urged that: as a matter of fact, every demand raised by HUDA was illegal and he kept on successfully questioning the same before District Consumer Commission, Yamuna Nagar by filing repeated complaints. Precisely on these submissions, he has urged for acceptance of his appeal.

11.    Per Contra, learned counsel appearing of respondent has urged that plot in question (No. 536. Sector 18, Part-I, UE Jagadhari) has already been sold by appellant to Mohit Kataria S/o Sh. B.P. Kataria AND Smt. Amarjit Kaur w/o Sh. B.P. Kataria vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure R-7 in which names of both vendees have been mentioned). Re-allotment letter dated 16.12.2012 (Annexure R-8) was also issued by OP No.1. Hence, appellant did not remain consumer of OPs after 16.11.2012. It is urged that there is no locus-standi in favour of appellant to file compliant on 08.07.2014. Still further, learned counsel for OPs has justified outstanding amount demanded from appellant, during the time, he remained owner of plot in question.  It is urged that amount had been paid by appellant and if there was any grievance of appellant on that score; he could have questioned the legality of demand of Rs.1,87,871/- before Administrator HUDA by filing an appeal.

12.    Undisputedly, appellant on the day of filing of complaint, was erstwhile owner of plot in question which was allotted to him, being the alternate plot, vide letter No. 5706 dated 10.08.1999.  This Commission does not deem it appropriate to discuss the nature of earlier round of litigations between appellant and Ops, as the same were settled at rest, because Ops have already complied with directions issued by District Consumer Commission, in earlier round of litigations. Conveyance deed in favour of appellant was executed on 06.11.2012, only after outstanding amount due against plot No. 536, UE, Sector-18, Jagadhari were paid by appellant which admittedly was paid by him on 13.08.2012. Conveyance deed was registered in appellant’s name on 12.11.2012 vide Vasika No. 7426. Only after conveyance deed in favour of appellant got the light of its day; the appellant immediately executed registered sale deed No. 7487 on 16.11.2012 in favour of vendees namely: Mohit Kataria S/o Sh. B.P. Kataria AND Smt. Amarjit Kaur w/o Sh. B.P. Kataria. By executing sale deed on 16.11.2012 vide Vasika No. 7487 all rights titles and interest qua plot in question (No. 536, UE, Sector-18, Jagadhari) in favour of appellant were extinguished and same stood vested in favour of subsequent transferees of this plot. It is well settled legal adage that any subsequent vendee of an immovable property would take the property, along with all assets and liabilities attached to it. There can be no exception so far as appellant is concerned. As a legal corollary so flowing appellant was not a consumer of Ops hence after 16.11.2012. He had no locus-standi to file complaint before District Consumer Commission on 08.07.2014. Any grievance qua plot in question could have been questioned only by subsequent vendees, after 16.11.2012 before any competent court of Law. This being so, this Commission endorses the finding of learned District Commission that appellant does not fall in this scope of definition of consumer.

13.    Lots of hue  and cry has been raised by appellant that amount of Rs.1,87,900/- deposited by him on 13.08.2012, was a deposit under protest, and it accentuated from illegal demand of Rs.1,87,871/- confronted upon him by HUDA. On the other hand Ops has justified their action qua this demand. Letter Annexure R-5 of HUDA bearing No. 4365 dated 06.08.2012 addressed to appellant expressly recites that: “However, the overdue amount has been communicated to you as per HUDA policy and if you are not satisfied for the same you can file an appeal against said demand before Administrator HUDA Panchkula”. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by appellant to question the authenticity of demand. Instead, he deposited amount on 13.08.2012. There was no impediment before appellant to avail legal remedy of appeal so apprised to him by OP No.1 in its letter dated 06.08.2012. Letter Annexure C-13 dated 16.08.2012 written by appellant thereby showing his protest against amount of Rs.1,87,900/- deposited by him on 13.08.2012, will not stimulate any cause of appellant. Any letter written to OP by appellant, after deposit of amount would be insignificant. Obviously, OP would execute conveyance deed in favour of appellant in relation to plot No. 536 only when all outstanding dues in its favour with respect to that plot are cleared. In this regard it is visible from record that OP was acting within the parameters of conditions of allotment letter Annexure C-1 dated 04.07.1994 which pertained to Plot No. 533 originally allotted to appellant. Phraseology of condition No. 9 stipulates that: price mentioned in this letter is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately, as determined by the Authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days of the demand.  This being so, demand of additional price by Ops from appellant cannot be viewed as arbitrary, much less, no illegality is attached to it. OP had demanded the amount from appellant, while acting within the realm of allotment letter. Appellant cannot question the legality of this demand merely on the ground that no possession of plot was offered to him.  In any case, argument of appellant to this effect is wholly misconceived.  Appellant could not show any document to this Commission to project that OP’s demand of amount from him, under the cover of Additional Price has been the outcome of their malafide act.

14.    Letters Annexure R-1, R-3 and R-4, in unambiguous terms reflect that offer of possession was made to the appellant. It was the appellant alone, who failed to make himself available in person in the office of HUDA along with prescribed proforma for claiming possession. There is no deficiency in service of Ops, even remotely, on the backdrop of factual scenario of this case.

15.    Above critical discussion of the matter will land this Commission, only on one inescapable conclusion that this appeal does not carry any substance. Impugned order 22.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. Facts and evidence brought before learned District Commission have been appreciated, in proper legal perspective. Consequently impugned order dated 22.11.2017 is affirmed and maintained.  Present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.      

16.    Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

17.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

18.    File be consigned to record room.

 

Date of pronouncement: 23^rd May, 2023

 

                                                                             Naresh Katyal                                                                                          Judicial Member

Addl. Bench-II               

 

D.K