w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another v/s Partap Singh

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC300616

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC166069

Company & Directors' Information:- R K URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC223591

Company & Directors' Information:- A. B. URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH2015PTC267677

    F.A. No. 470 of 2018

    Decided On, 02 May 2019

    At, Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula


    For the Appellants: Ranvir Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ajay Swami, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2. Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the complainant has been allotted plot No. 217 in Sector-13 at Bahadurgarh by the opposite parties-appellants. The price of the plot was Rs. 12.38 lacs vide memo No. 10919 dated 6.10.2008. After depositing 25% of the total price of the plot, he was to make the payment of balance amount of Rs. 9,28,500. Inadvertently, he deposited Rs. 7,00,000 vide draft dated 4.12.2008, but, O.Ps. refunded Rs. 6,88,784 through cheque. Despite several requests, the OPs failed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 11,216 to him. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3. The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps.-HUDA-appellants by filing a written version before the District Forum, in which, they stated that complainant was to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 12,38,000 as per terms and conditions of allotment letter. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,23,800 along with application for allotment. After allotment of the plot, the complainant was to deposit Rs. 1,85,700 within 30 days after the allotment letter, but, the complainant had deposited the same on 28.11.2008 i.e. after 23 days. The complainant was liable to pay surcharge Rs. 9,285 and delayed interest of Rs. 1,893. The O.Ps. refund the amount of Rs. 6,88,784 to him after deducting the surcharge and delayed interest i.e. Rs. 11,178. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Preliminary objections about the locus standi, accruing cause of action, concealment of material facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4. After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short “District Forum”) disposed of the complaint vide impugned order dated 5.12.2017 and directed as under:

“We, therefore, direct the respondents to expedite handing over the physical possession of plot No. 217, send the “agreement to lease” with all documents for execution of the necessary legal formalities as per allotment terms and conditions and refund the excess sum of Rs. 11,216 received from the complainant as discussed above with lump sum compensation of Rs. 20,000 to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500 on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and un warranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

5. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. appellants have preferred this appeal.

6. This argument has been advanced by Mr. Ranvir Sood, the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Ajay Swami, the learned Counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7. The basic question which arises for adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 1,85,700 being the second instalment well in time. It is also important to make a reference here that the mode of payment was in the shape of demand draft only and it was to be sent by postal means. Even the document cannot be delivered by visiting the personally in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh. The instalment was to be paid by 6th of November, 2008. As per the zerox copy of the demand draft, which was got prepared on 3.11.2008, as per the postal receipt, it was sent to the office of the Estate Officer. Bahadurgarh on 3.11.2008 itself and as a consequence thereof, it could be safely presumed that the amount of the instalment of Rs. 1,85,700 had been paid well in time and whatever the amount of the interest has been deducted out of the amount, which was separately paid by the complainant was not legally justified, though the remaining amount was refunded. After going through the entire schedule of payment and other documents particularly the allottees account statement available at page Nos. 46 to 51, the entire amount of the instalment had been paid well in time and since show cause notice issued to the complainant, the payment raised of Rs. 1,22,647 is absolutely illegal, null and void and as such, is not sustainable. The complainant is under obligation to make the payment of the extension fees and other required fees for the delivery of the plot in question and since the possession has been offered, it would be immediately delivered upon making the payment of the extension fees which is approximately Rs. 17,642 upto 2017 and since the possession is to be delivered in the year of 2019 whatever the extra amount is found recoverable as being extension fees or any other misc. charges not being the d

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

elayed interest on any of the instalments which have already been paid by the complainant. The possession of the plot would be delivered within a period of one week from clearing all the dues as referred above. 8. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of. 9. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. Appeal disposed of.