ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Complaint is filed by Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant". The Complainant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its registered office at Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. The Complainant provides dwelling units to serving and retired Army personnel and their widows on 'No Profit No Loss" basis.

(2.) The case of the Complainant is that they were allotted 5 acres land in Group Housing Plot No.4 (GH-4) in Sector 9, Ambala City by the Opposite Parties/Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short 'HUDA') vide allotment letter No.21417 dtd. 8/7/1991, for Rs.1,58,48,000.00. Possession of the land was handed over on 8/2/1993. The Complainant made final payment to the Opposite Parties on 5/7/1996. The Opposite Parties, vide letter dtd. 8/1/1997, demanded an additional amount of Rs.5097990.78 on the ground of enhanced compensation pursuant to judgment dtd. 6/5/1992 of Ld. Additional District Judge, Ambala, which was allegedly deposited by the Opposite Parties in the Court. The Opposite Parties, never informed the Complainant till the last date of payment i.e. 5/7/1996 that an additional amount was to be paid by the Complainant in terms of judgment dtd. 6/5/1992 of Learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. The Opposite Parties did not give any explanation as to why the order of the learned Additional District, Judge, Ambala City dtd. 6/5/1992 was suppressed from the Complainant. The Complainant, however, paid enhanced compensation as determined pursuant to a judgment/award dtd. 6/5/1992 passed by the District Judge, Ambala. The order of the District Judge, Ambala is dtd. 6/5/1992 and the Opposite Party made demand, vide letter dtd. 8/1/1997, after expiry of more than six years. Moreover, the compensation awarded by the District Judge, Ambala was much lesser than the demand made by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant sent legal notice dtd. 28/5/1997 to Opposite Parties seeking clarification of the highly inflated, illegal and arbitrary demand dtd. 8/1/1997. The Opposite Parties instead of giving clarification/justification of the demands, vide letter dtd. 18/6/1997, threatened the Complainant to impose further penalty of 10% on the demand dtd. 8/1/1997. The Opposite Parties had also illegally charged for the land which fell under green belt. The Complainant, vide letter dtd. 30/3/1999, requested the Opposite Parties to exclude the green belt of 30 meter width from the allotment of land and adjust/set off the cost thereof, as had been done in the allotment of land to Telecom Department Group Housing Plot. The Opposite Parties, however, did not reply to the said letter. On the contrary, the Opposite Parties, vide letter dtd. 30/6/2000, raised further demand of Rs.10,75,812.00. The Complainant deposited the said amount alongwith interest on 18/8/2000 under protest. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties made third demand of Rs.23,44,289.00, vide letter dtd. 16/10/2005 and fourth demand of Rs.1,28,00,999.00, vide letter dtd. 15/1/2008 which were paid by the Complainant under protest. The total amount of compensation demanded by the Opposite Parties was more than the actual cost of land. The Complainant filed Case No: CA-59/2008 before the MRTP, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint with the following prayer: -

(3.) The Opposite Parties resisted the Complaint by filing reply stating that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant was not a "Consumer" under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant was legally bound to pay the enhanced compensation in terms of terms and condition of the allotment letter and the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977. The Complainant is seeking refund of the amount of enhanced compensation paid from 1994 to 1997, 2000 and 2006 etc. and the Complaint filed in 2001 was barred by limitation. The Complainant sought refund of the amounts paid by them. It is nothing but a suit for recovery, which is not maintainable before the Consumer Court and the appropriate forum is a Civil Court. The Complaint is also barred by Clause No.22 of the allotment letter, which provided for reference of disputes to arbitration.