VIJENDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal while accepting the complaint No.1124 dated 7.11.2001, as per order dated 14.5.2003 directed the respondent-opposite party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.5,000 and Rs.18,680 received from the appellant-complainants on account of transfer fee and execution of conveyance deed, failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the order till payment. At the same time direction was given to recover the aforesaid amount from the pay packets of the erring officials. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the complainants have come up in appeal as no compensation has been awarded on account of harassment and monetary loss caused to the complainants and the opposite parties were required to refund Rs.63,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum incurred by the complainants, on account of negligence committed by the opposite parties.

(2.) In order to decide the controversy raised in the present appeal the facts as set out in the complaint have to be noticed briefly. The plot No.852 located in Sector 8 and 9, Karnal was allotted to one H. G. Khurana. He had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant No.2 on 20.5.1999. The complainant No.2 entered into an agreement to sell the said plot to the complainant No.1. Accordingly, he applied to the opposite parties in January, 2000 for transfer of the said plot in favour of the complainant No.1. He had also deposited Rs.12,330 on 24.1.2000 vide receipt No.95/209581 with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 as per letter bearing memo No.2242 dated 18.2.2000 intimated to the complainant No.2 to visit the office of the opposite party No.2 on any working day. Accordingly, the complainant No.2 visited the office of opposite party No.2 in the last week of February 2000 but nothing was done during this visit. Thereafter, the complainant No.2 received another letter bearing No.982 dated 3.5.2000 in respect of change of the transfer policy. In the month of January 2001 the complainant received another letter whereby he was asked to deposit Rs.22,000 in respect of the request for transfer of the plot. The complainant, accordingly, deposited the said amount vide draft No.236949 dated 30.1.2001 with the opposite parties. The opposite parties further raised the demand of Rs.20,829 as per letter bearing No.3655 dated 8.3.2001 as extension fee in respect of the said plot. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 on the request of the complainant adjusted the previous deposits of Rs.12,330 towards the demand made and further directed to the complainants to make the deposits of Rs.8,600 which was accordingly paid vide draft No.606323 dated 12.3.2001. The grievance of the complainant is that the transfer policy dated 8.3.2000 was not applicable to them and on account of non-issue of the re-allotment letter by the opposite parties had caused loss to them because they had to deposit non-construction free of Rs.8,600 for the year 2000; increased transfer fees of Rs.5,000 and Rs.22,000; Rs.18,680 on conveyance deed and Rs.63,000 as registration charges for execution of the sale-deed, because the permission to transfer the plot was given to them on 15.6.2001. The complainants have termed the action of the opposite parties as mala fide because the plot in question was required to be transferred in the name of the purchaser within a period of 5 days of the receipt of the application and on deposit of the necessary amount and completion of the other requirements as per instructions of the opposite parties. The non-transfer of the plot in question in favour of the complainant No.1 has resulted in escalation of the cost of construction. Under these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking directions against the opposite parties to refund Rs.5,000, Rs.8,600, Rs.22,000 and Rs.18,680 respectively recovered from him along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of increased transfer fee, non-construction/extension fee, additional amount and registration charges incurred on the conveyance-deed respectively. In addition, the complainants also claimed refund of Rs.63,000 incurred as registration charges for execution of the sale deed along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realisation; Rs.20,000 on account of mental agony and harassment caused to them; Rs.2 lacs for escalated cost of construction and Rs.5,000 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed the details of the amount deposited with the opposite parties by the complainants as mentioned in the complaint was not disputed. But at the same time, it was maintained that the complainant had attended the office on 14.3.2000 in response to the letter vide Memo No.2242 dated 18.2.2000 and by that time new policy had come into force on 8.3.2000 and for that reason the extension fee had been got deposited by the complainants, as alleged, the amount of Rs.12,330 which was adjusted on account of extension fee. It was further stated that the complainants had deposited Rs.5,000 as transfer fee on 24.4.2001 under the new policy to be effected from 8.3.2000 wherein the transfer/sale was being effected through execution of conveyance deed/sale deed. The plot in question was transferred as per letter No.10313 dated 25.7.2001. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions as per order dated 14.5.2003. Against the said order the appellant-complainants have come up in appeal seeking directions to the opposite parties noticed earlier.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length. During the course of arguments learned Counsel representing the appellant-complainants referred to the D. O. letter No.14187-90 dated 22.4.1999 Annexure A-l placed on record wherein the procedure for transfer of the ownership of the plots has been prescribed. The schedule for various activities annexed with the said letter clearly established that the final transfer had to be effected within 5 working days while work relating to transfer permission could be completed within 18 working days. It is fully established on record that the complainant had completed all the formalities and had deposited the required amount with the opposite parties before 8.3.2000, when the new policy had come into force. The permission came to be granted by the opposite parties on 15.6.2001. It has been laid down in case Sanjay Arora V/s. State of Haryana and Others,2001 1 PLJ 209, that the revised policy which had come into effect from 8.3.2000 had no retrospective effect. The transfer of the plot in question was effected in favour of the complainant No.1 on 25.7.2001. The District Forum taking into consideration the above noted circumstances has come to a finding that as the complainant had completed all the formalities including the amount to be deposited for effecting the transfer of the plot before 8.3.2000, deficiency of service was committed by the opposite party No.2 as it failed to adhere to the time schedule mentioned above. Accordingly, direction was given to the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.5,000 and Rs.18,680 recovered from the complainant on account of transfer fee, execution of conveyance deed, to be paid to the complainants within 30 days failing which interest @ 12% p. a. was to be paid from the date of order till payment. Learned Counsel representing the complainants has contended that as the complainants had to incur the expenses of Rs.63,000 towards the registration charges for the sale deed on account of the fault of the opposite parties, this amount was also liable to be paid to the complainants but the District Forum had committed illegality in declining the relief claimed. The prayer made, as such, cannot be accepted because at that point of time when the opposite parties had asked the complainants to execute the conveyance deed under new policy, instead of contesting the standing of the opposite parties by seeking remedy as provided under the law, the complainants for their benefit had complied with the directions given. Under the circumstances of the case, the District Forum was fully justified in declining rest of the claim made in the complaint.