MUNSHI RAM CHHABRA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainants Munshi Ram Chhabra, his wife Phoola Rani and three sons Arun Chhabra, Satish Chhabra and Sanjiv Chhabra have invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint against Haryana Urban Development Authority, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs, as also refund of an amount of Rs.5 lakhs alleged to have been recovered in excess by HUDA by way of penalty and interest etc. and for setting aside the notice dated 13th October, 1995 demanding a sum of Rs 9,18,179.71 paise alongwith extension fee amounting to Rs.66,499.10 paise, alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA.

(2.) According to the complainants, HUDA auctioned a commercial site in Sector 11, Panchkula in August, 1986 and the complainants being the highest bidders allotted show-room site No.6 for Rs.9,55,500/-. The complainants deposited 10% of the total amount immediately at the time of auction and after the receipt of the letter of allotment dated 19th August, 1986 they further deposited 15% of the total amount. Similarly the complainants continued to deposit the instalments regularly and by 18th November, 1991 they had deposited a sum of Rs.12,13,587.35 paise as against Rs.9,55,500/-price of the plot as per letter of allotment. Though according to the letter of allotment the complainants were entitled to take possession of the plot immediately after allotment, yet the site being not fully developed, the possession was not delivered immediately thereafter. It took full five years to HUDA to develop the plot, during which period the complainants approached the HUDA authorities number of times for the delivery of possession, but the same was not delivered. Ultimately, it was on 26th November, 1991 that the possession of the plot was handed over to the complainants by the Estate Officer, Panchkula vide possession certificate, reproduced below : "possession CERTIFICATE certified that I Vinod Kumar, Junior Engineer of the office of the Estate Officer, Panchkula have carefully checked the relevant paper and the dimension of plot of Show Room No.6, Sector 11 of Urban Estate, Panchkula and the size of the plot allotted to Shri Munshi Ram and others s/o Ganga Ram Chhabra is given as under : 1. Length of the plot 52.25 M.2. Breadth of the plot 11.00 M.3. Area.574.75 Sq. M.4. Rear set back as per 5. Front set Back-do-Accordingly, on the basis of above details, the possession of the plot has been given to the said allottee/authorised person. Sd/-For Estate Officer, panchkula. I, Munshi Ram and others s/o Ganga Ram Chhabra the above name allottee of the Urban Estate, Show Room No.6, Sector 11, Panchkula have taken the possession of the plot as per above dimensions as allotted to me vide Estate Officer, allotment letter No.12674 dated 19.8.1986. As per Provisional Regulation 10 of the HUDA, (Execution of Building) Regulations, 1979,1 hereby note that I will to give at least works notice to the Estate Officer, before actually command the erection of the building on the Memo No.6914. Dated : 26.1.1991 sd/ name and Signature of allottee"

(3.) According to the complainants, though they have already paid a sum of Rs.12,13,57.35 paise to HUDA upto 18th November, 1991 against the original price of the plot of Rs.9,55,500/-yet on 13th October, 1995 HUDA demanded an additional amount of Rs.9,18,179.71 paise as "over dues of the site and extension fee upto 31st December, 1995 amounting to Rs.66,499.10 paise". The complainants on the receipt of the recovery notice immediately deposited another sum of Rs. one lakh in November, 1995. Consequently the complainants have paid Rs. five lakhs in excess to HUDA in addition to the price originally fixed in the letter of allotment. According to the complainants, from the inquiries made by them it transpired, that even though the deficiency was on the part of HUDA in not delivering the possession immediately after the allotment was made in 1986 and was delayed by more than five years, yet additional demand was created by HUDA by imposing penalty and styling the amount as "over dues". Since, according to the complainants they had already deposited about five lakhs rupees in excess, of the original price as mentioned in the letter of allotment, nothing was due from them and in fact HUDA was liable to refund the aforesaid amount alongwith damages, for compensating the complainants due to their deficiency in service in not delivering the possession of the plot for more than five years after the allotment. Aggrieved against this, the complainants filed the present complaint.