HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Ved Parkash

THE above revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as on 23.3.2010, this Commission observed that the issues raised in all these revision petitions are identical and they are being taken up for consideration.

THE question raised in these revision petitions is that as per terms of allotment letter, possession of plots were to be offered only on completion of development work in the locality, can the petitioner still charge interest from the date of offer of possession of the plots to them?

BOTH the Fora below had answered the question adverse to the petitioner.

VIDE order dated 27.7.2010, certain directions were given to both the parties. However, these directions have not been complied with by the petitioner, whereas respondents have complied with the same. Order dated 27.7.2010 reads as under: "Heard Mr. R.S. Badhran, learned Counsel for the petitioner-HUDA, Mr. Surender Tyagi, learned Counsel for the respondent-Ved Parkash s/o Mr. Ramditta in RP/2168/2009 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate for the respondents in RP/2920/2009 and RP/2921/2009 respectively. No one is present on behalf of any of the respondents in the other revision petitions under consideration (item Nos. 3 - 10 of the cause list). It is also observed that Ripudaman Goyal, respondent in RP/2543/2009; Ram Bhagat Shastri, respondent in RP/3936/2009 and Ram Pal Majra, respondent in RP/4596/2009 were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 23.3.2010. Both the learned Counsel for the respondents seek to file reports of respective Local Commissioners stated to have been appointed by the District Forum concerned. These reports are taken on record and copies have been made available to Mr. Badhran. Contrary to what was stated earlier, the disputes in these petitioners (which are in respect of plots allotted in two different HUDA Estates) are not limited to lack of electricity supply alone. Therefore, Mr. Badhran is directed to prepare a comprehensive chart showing, revision petition-wise and Estate-wise; the names of the respective allottees/respondents involved in each revision petition, specific allegations/prayers in the complaint of the allottee concerned, observations in respect of civic amenities in the respective reports of the Local Commissioners and the grounds cited by the petitioner to oppose the orders of the Fora below. Copies of statement may be furnished in advance to the learned Counsel for the parties who are present today. This action may be completed within four weeks. Stand over to 1.9.2010 for admission hearing. Interim order to continue till then."

ON 1.9.2010, following order was passed by this Commission: "In compliance of the direction dated 27.7.2010, a written note has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which does not fully meet the requirement of the direction. Mr. Badhran reiterates that the only allegation in the complaints leading to revision petition Nos. 2166/09, 2167/09, 2168/09, 2543/09, 3936/09 and 4596/09 was lack of electricity supply. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent in RP 2920/09 and 2921/09 states that the allegations involved in these two cases were not limited to the supply of electricity alone. This is confirmed by Mr. Badhran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is seen that copies of the relevant complaints in question have not been filed in RP 2168/09, 2921/09 and 3936/09. Mr. Badhran is directed to file copies of the complaints in the above mentioned three cases, within four weeks. Stand over to 2.12.2010 for admission hearing."

THEREAFTER on 2.12.2010, following order was passed: "Proxy Counsel for the petitioner is present. In view of the controversies between the parties this Bench on 27.7.2010 had directed the petitioner body to submit a comprehensive chart containing required details prescribed in the order. We do not find compliance of the order from the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to ensure compliance of the order in question. Adjourned to 5.4.2011."

ON 5.4.2011, this Bench passed the following order: "We have perused the records. As per earlier order 2.12.2010, petitioner was to file comprehensive chart containing required details as mentioned in order dated 27.7.2010 passed by this Bench. In spite of various opportunities were granted to the petitioner, petitioner has failed to comply with the said order. Last opportunity is given, to comply with the earlier directions and to file a comprehensive chart, within four weeks, with advance copy to Counsel for respondent. In case, petitioner fails to comply with the said order, the stay granted in this case, shall stand vacated, automatically without any further order. Adjourned to 24.8.2011 for admission hearing."

THEREAFTER on 24.8.2011, following order was passed: "It is stated by Proxy Counsel Mr. B. S. Sharma on behalf of Mr. R. S. Badhran, Advocate for petitioner that Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate is busy in Court No. 1. Pass over is sought. On the second call also, Counsel for petitioner is not present. Though, petitioner has filed certain documents. However, they are not in consonance with the directions passed by this Bench on 27.7.2010. Accordingly, in terms of order dated 5.4.2011 passed by this Bench, ex parte stay granted stands vacated. List the matter on 19.10.2011 for admission hearing as well as disposal of application for condonation of delay."

THUS, it is apparent from the record that in spite of various opportunities and directions given by this Commission, the petitioner has not complied with the orders and as such inference has to be drawn against the petitioner for not complying with the directions passed by this Commission.

BE that as it may, short question which arises for consideration is as to whether possession of the plots were offered to the respondents without completion of the development work and in these circumstances whether complaints of the respondents are maintainable or not.

IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that possession of the plots were handed over to the respondents after completion of all the development works, as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

IN the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that when petitioner completed the development work and handed over the electric system to the HSEB, Kaithal, the work of supply of electricity is independent work of HSEB. The plot owner can obtain electric connection individually as per the norms of HSEB and the distribution of electricity to the consumer does not come within the purview of the petitioner.

ON the other hand, case of respondents is that possession of the plots were given, without completion of the basic amenities.

DISTRICT Forum, Kaithal in its order held: "From the perusal of record and arguments advanced by the parties, it is very much clear that the complainants only sought the relief against the HUDA Deptt. and they did not seek the relief against the respondent No. 3 i.e. S.D.O. ''OP'' Sub Division No. 2 H.V.P.N. Kaithal in complaint case Nos. 26, 269, 303 and 347. It is further admitted fact of the parties that the electricity was provided in June, 1999 in Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal. The same is clear as per reply of the respondents in complaint case No. 347 dateed 11.10.2K titled as Ram Pal Majra v. HUDA Kaithal, and before June, 1999, there was no facility of electricity in the said sector. The respondents offered the possession without providing any basic amenities and they charged possession interest on the remaining instalments. So the respondents are not entitled to recover the possession interests from the complainants. The possession interest recovered by the respondents in complaints No. 267/2K, 269/2K and 347/2K be refunded to the complainants @ 12% p.a. from the date of order".

District Forum further observed: "After perusal of report of L.C. it is very much clear that in Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal, the respondents have not provided the proper and good amenities to the respondents of Sector 20, HUDA. So the fault lies on the shoulders of the respondent Nos. 1 to 10. The respondents are supposed to provide good services to the consumers but their services are not upto the mark in the present trend."

STATE Commission while dismissing the appeals observed as under: "Adverting to the merit of appeal, a perusal of pleadings of the parties, record of the case, impugned order and the grounds of appeal brings us to the conclusion that contention of the appellant is bereft of merit that the District Forum has erroneously allowed the complaints and granted relief to the complainants, though there was no deficiency on their part in the provision of facilities. We out-rightly reject this contention of appellant as it stands proved from the various documents and the report of Local Commissioner. For instance the District Forum accepted the averment of complainants regarding non-provision of electricity on the basis of reply and documents filed by HUDA in complaint case No. 347 of 2001 titled as Ram Pal Majra v. HUDA. The documents placed on record by HUDA proved that there was no electricity in the sector in question before June, 1999. The District Forum rightly allowed the relief to the complainants since the deficiency in services provided by HUDA was proved rather admitted on record. The contention of appellant that the complainants were required to raise their grievance regarding the non-provision of electricity before DHBVN as the work of electrification was entrusted to the Electricity Department, is noted to be rejected as the HUDA was required to provide the basic facilities. There is no rule/regulation placed on record vide which the allottees were required to approach the electricity department for getting the electricity, hence this plea of HUDA is noted to be rejected. The District Forum rightly waived off possession interest and the extension fee before June, 1999 as the complainants were not provided requisite facilities for construction of the houses. The amount of Rs. 30,000 as escalation charges was rightly awarded as due to delay in the construction the complainants were put to financial losses. The only submission, which is deemed to be worthy of being accepted is that the District Forum allowed the refund of the amounts paid by the complainants in complaint case Nos. 267, 269 and 347 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order. Since Rs. 30,000 has been awarded towards costs of escalation and Rs. 5,000 has been granted as compensation for harassment and mental agony, the rate of interest has been granted on the higher side. We are of the opinion that ends of justice shall meet, if the rate of interest is reduced to 9% p.a. In all other respects the well reasoned order of the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity in appreciation of facts or application of law, is upheld. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed on all grounds except for reduction in the rate of interest from 12% to 9% p.a."

THUS, it is apparent from the record and as per petitioner''s own case, no electricity was provided to the respondents at the time of possession of the plots. Thus, possession of the plots was handed to the respondents without completion of the development work. Accordingly, the deficiency on the part of the petitioner is writ large in this case.

AS already observed, petitioner inspite of directions issued by this Commission did not comply with the orders and did not place the relevant documents on record and as such inference has to be drawn against the petitioner.

RECENTLY, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC)=IV (2011) SLT 303=2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed: "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order and only then: may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora."

IN all the above petitions, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to call for interference in the exercise of power under Section 21(b) of the Act, since, two Fora below have given cogent reasons in their order which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.

IT is not that every order passed by Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same is based on sound reasoning.

ACCORDINGLY, present revision petitions are not maintainable being devoid of any merits. The same has been filed just to waste the time of this Commission. Accordingly, all the petitions stand dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) each.

PETITIONER is accordingly directed to deposit the costs by way of cross cheque for the sum of Rs. 80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand only) in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" within four weeks from today.

IN case, costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST on 16.12.2011 for compliance. Revision Petitions dismissed.