DHARAM SINGH vs HUDA & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed by Dharam Singh against the order dated 06.12.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short ''the State Commission'') wherein the order dated 20.05.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar, (in short ''the District Forum'') directing the respondents to refund Rs.4,72,468.48/-,has been set aside and the complaint has also been dismissed.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. We also perused the documents carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had applied for allotment of an industrial plot against the advertisement made by the respondents and a Plot No.49 in Sector 27A/28, Hisar was allotted to him. The petitioner Initially deposited Rs.57,127/- being 10% of the cost of plot in question. The petitioner further deposited Rs.85,689/- being the 15% price of the plot in terms of the letter of allotment dated 03.10.1991. Advertisement mentioned that after the initial amount the remaining amount can be deposited within 60 days without any interest or in six equal instalments with interest @10% p.a. for the balance amount. However, in the allotment letter, the balance amount was asked to be paid in five instalments with interest @15% p.a. The petitioner received a notice from the respondents for cancelling the allotment and resumption of the plot after he had defaulted in payment of some instalments. Later he applied before the appellate authority, i.e. the Administrator, HUDA, who vide order dated 23.01.2001 gave two months'' time to deposit the remaining outstanding amount along with interest, penalty and extension fee. Later on he received a demand of Rs.4,72,468.48 from the respondents vide letter dated 19.02.2001, which he paid under protest. Learned counsel informed that till now he has paid Rs.4,90,438/- in total by 22.09.1997, which is more than the cost of the plot. Here, learned counsel mentioned that the original cost of the plot was Rs.5,71,263.65, which was reduced to Rs.4,50,825.58. The learned counsel also pointed out that when the plot was allotted, the area was not developed at all as per the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Act & Rules. District Forum has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant/petitioner as he could not have used the plot as the area was not developed and no basic amenities were provided. Therefore, the respondents were not justified in levying the interest, penalties or extension fee etc. In the appeal filed by the respondent, the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission has not appreciated the fact that it was not possible to raise building or run industry on the plot for want of any basic amenities like electricity etc. The respondents have not given any break-up of the interest, penalties or extension fee while making the demand of Rs.4,72,468.48 after the order of the Administrator HUDA. Learned counsel claimed that all the money that has been paid was against the instalments required to be paid as per the allotment letter and there was no question of any penalties or extension fee to be imposed on the petitioner. Thus, there is material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission.

The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the complaint has been filed after 10 years and initially he tried to get his grievances redressed from the Authorities of HUDA. As he did not deposit the instalments in time, notice was given to him for resuming the plot and cancelling the allotment. Against this notice, he approached the Administrator, HUDA who allowed him to deposit all the remaining amount along with interest, penalties and extension fee as per the Rules & Regulations of the Authority within two months and the petitioner followed that order. Accordingly, a demand was sent to the petitioner for Rs.4,72,468.48, which he deposited. The petitioner deposited this amount to save him from any action of resumption of plot by HUDA and now that he has got the possession and also raised the industry on the plot, he has taken shelter under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to get his amount of interest, penalties and extension fee back from HUDA. The order of the State Commission clearly mentions that the petitioner has not given full facts in his complaint. Learned counsel quoted the following portions of the order of the State Commission:- " 8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the allotment letter was issued to the complainant/respondent on 3.10.1991 vide which the rate of interest was mentioned to be 15 1/2% and the number of installments were to be five. He objected to this aspect of the allotment vide para No.4 of his complaint in 2001 by filing the present

complaint. It is argued that complying with the requirements of the allotment letter, the complainant deposited the instalments and therefore, by the law of estopple as well as latches and delay, he cannot grudge the reduced number of instalments or the increased rate of interest after a period of ten years. He was free to accept the allotment letter as a whole or to reject it. Once, he has accepted the allotment and paid the installments, he cannot discard the other terms and conditions of the said allotment.

9.............. It is true that the complainant had paid an amount, which was somewhat more than the original price of the plot but a major portion of the said amount was paid towards interest and extension fee and penalty in not paying the installments by due dates and not raising the construction within the prescribed period. The said amount, therefore, cannot be applied towards the payment of the plot alone. 10. A perusal of the entire complaint shows that the complainant nowhere mentioned as to on which dates what amount of instalment was payable by him and on which dates, the same was paid. ...............................

11....................... An order dated 23.1.2001 was passed by the Administrator that the complainant had undertaken to deposit the entire outstanding amount including interest and penalty within two weeks and the resumption was set aside subject to the said deposit........ Needless to mention that if any incorrect statement appears in order, then the person alleged to have made that statement is required to inform the offer/authority that he never made such a statement and that the assertion in this regard in the order was wrong. The said order was never challenged by the complainant by filing a revision petition before the higher authority i.e. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana.

12.............. The possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant on 3.10.1991 but for ten years, he never alleged if there was no development of the area or the delivery of possession was meaningless. He had paid two installmentsalos without any murmur. It occurred to him only after he failed to pay the next installments and the plot was resumed, which shows the malafide of his assertion. Apart from that, the best circumstance against the contention of the complainant is contained in Para No.13 of the complaint in which he admitted that he had raised construction and the unit was in production.........."

Learned counsel for the respondents also mentions that the rate of interest charged from the allottees is a dynamic phenomenon and changes from time to time. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner in this regard is not sustainable.

After hearing both the learned counsels and perusing the records carefully, we find that the State Commission has critically examined all the issues raised by the petitioner. We are also at a loss to find about how much money has been paid by the petitioner to the respondents and on what dates. We specifically asked this specific question from the learned counsel for the petitioner, who replied that in total Rs.4,90,438/- has been paid by the petitioner to the respondents. Though, it is not clear how much of this amount is interest or penalty or extension fee, we are of the view that the amount of Rs.4,72,438.48 was paid by the petitioner subsequent to the order of the Administrator, HUDA. HUDA is an Authority of the State Government and the

petitioner should have got clarifications about the amounts of interest, penalties and extension fee from HUDA. If he was not convinced about this order of Administrator, HUDA, he should have appealed against this order before the appropriate Authority of the State Government. He deposited the amount and continued with the possession of the plot and finally raised the industry there. In this regard, we are in agreement with the above mentioned observations of the State Commission. It is admitted that delay in payment of the instalments was there. In these circumstances, the levying of interest is as per rules. As the construction on the plot was not done in time, Huda was authorised to levy penalties and extension fee and the same was ordered by the Administrator on the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to prove that he has deposited any excess amount with the HUDA Authorities to entitle him for any refund.

Accordingly, we find that the revision petition is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Both parties to bear their own costs.