R.B.T. No.1401 of 2008 in Appeal No.1461 of 2002. Case: 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, 2. The Administrator, HUDA, Hisar, 3. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar Vs Sh. Dharam Singh, Proprietor of M/s Dharam Saw and General Mill. Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | R.B.T. No.1401 of 2008 in Appeal No.1461 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For the Appellants: Sh. Gurindre Pal Singh, Advocate and For the Respondent: Sh. Anurag Jain, Advocate |
| Judges | Mr. Pritam Pal, President, S. Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member and Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 2010 |
| Court | Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member
-
This is OPs'' appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.5.2002, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), allowing the complaint and quashing the letter of offer of possession and the order dated 23.1.2001 passed by the OPs and thereby directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4,72,468.48 Ps charged as interest, extension fee and penalty. The appeal was initially instituted before the Hon''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana and was received by this Commission under the orders dated 27.3.2008 passed by Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
-
According to the complainant, the plots were advertised by the OPs/appellants and one of the terms and conditions of the allotment was proposed to be that either the full amount in lumpsum would be paid without interest within 60 days from the date of allotment letter or in six equated annual installments with interest @10% on unpaid amount. The complainant applied for allotment of plot, in view of which, the plot in question was allotted to him but in the allotment letter dated 3.10.1991, the interest was increased to 15 ½ % and the number of installments were decreased from six to five. The complainant paid the initial amount and also paid some of the installments. It was averred that on account of defaults in 3rd and the 4th installments, OPs vide order dated 9.9.1999 (Annexure P-4) proceeded to resume the plot and also ordered forfeiture of 10% amount of the cost of the plot, against which, the complainant filed appeal before the Appellate Authority of HUDA and vide order dated 23.1.2001, the complainant was directed to deposit the deposit the entire outstanding amount including interest and penalty within two months. Subsequently, vide letter dated 19.2.2001 (Annexure P-6), OPs raised a demand of Rs.4,72,468.48Ps. The grouse of the complainant was that no basic facilities in the area were provided by the OPs and the action of OPs in charging interest and penalty could not be sustained. As per the complainant, even no electric poles/transformers were installed in the area in question till 1996 as is clear from letter dated 19.6.96 written by the Estate Officer, HUDA. As per him, he had already paid a sum of Rs.4,90,438/- to the OPs as against the price of the plot of Rs.4,50,835.39 Ps and had already raised construction. It was averred that...
To continue reading
Request your trial