HSVP HUDA RERA Panchkula Consumer Complaint

In this post we will discuss about Consumer Complaint against Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran Huda wherein the court directed the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant equivalent to the amount of interest payable on the amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 1,02,50,000/- from 29.04.2015 to 21.06.2018 at the rate prescribed in Rule 15 of HRERA Rules, 2017. The respondent shall pay the amount so awarded within 45 days from the uploading of this order.

This post is a summary of judgment wherein the complainant had purchased a commercial plot from the respondent in a public auction. The respondent had delivered him possession but when he started the construction work, the owner of adjoining property produced before him an order of Civil Court whereby the respondent and allottees were ordered to maintain the status quo regarding the allotted sites. The Court held that the complainant must be held entitled to compensation for the period starting from 29.04.2015, the date on which respondent had received the sale consideration, to 21.06.2018, the date on which a valid possession was delivered.

Judgment digest

Complaint No. :673/2018

Date of hearing .: 13.12.2018

Complainant:

Vijay Kumar

Respondent :

Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran HUDA

Facts and evidence presented by both parties.

The complainant had purchased a commercial plot from the respondent in a public auction on 15.01.2015 for a consideration of Rs.1,02,50,000/- which he had already paid by 29.04.2015. The respondent had delivered him possession but when he started the construction work, the owner of adjoining property produced before him an order of Civil Court whereby the respondent and allottees were ordered to maintain the status quo regarding the allotted sites. The claim set up by the owner of the neighboring property was that the respondent and his allottees were encroaching upon his property. The officers of the respondent thereafter realized the mistake which they had committed to carving out the plots put on auction and had carried out a fresh demarcation.

ALSO READ- CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT AGAINST EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED

Accordingly, the zoning plan of the area was revised. The complainant was however not delivered possession of the purchased property based on the revised zoning plan and as a result, he had to file a complaint before Real Estate Regulatory Authority(RERA). The respondent, during the pendency of the said complaint, had delivered possession of the purchased land to the complainant.

ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASES AGAINST MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

The respondent has not disputed that the complainant had purchased the plot in a public auction and he could not raise construction due to an injunction order passed in favor of the owner of adjoining land. It is also not disputed that the respondent had revised the zoning plan to record demarcate the plots put on auction. The fresh demarcation of the plot purchased by the complainant, after revision of the zoning plan, was delivered on 21.06.2018. So, the undersigned Authority has no hesitation in concluding that the complainant could not reap the fruits of the purchased property because there was an inherent defect on the part of the respondent in proper demarcation and delivery of possession of the purchased plot.

ALSO READ- HARYANA RERA PANCHKULA COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMAR ESTATES

So, the complainant has a right to claim compensation for the period he could not raise construction on the purchased plot. The respondent has sought to avoid its liability to pay compensation on the ground that there was no intentional delay on its part and revision of the zoning plan took a considerable time merely because the process involved permissions of various authorities and files were moving from one department to the other. Such explanation cannot save the respondent from its liability to compensate the complainant because the respondent had a pious duty to take necessary care in carving out plots before putting the same on public auction.

ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST JINDAL REALTY (P) LIMITED SONEPAT

If the department had committed some negligence in the demarcation of plots and any of the allottees from whom they had recovered the entire price of the purchased property, had suffered any loss because of such negligence, compensation becomes payable to such allottee for the period he remained deprived of his money paid to the department and also of the enjoyment of the property purchased by him.

Judgment:

Viewed from the above-discussed perspective, the complainant must be held entitled to compensation for the period starting from 29.04.2015, the date on which respondent had received the sale consideration, to 21.06.2018, the date on which a valid possession was delivered. Awarding interest at the rate prescribed in Rule 15 of HRERA Rules, 2017 on the amount of sale consideration paid to the respondent from the date of making full payment to the date of actual delivery, in the considered opinion of this Authority, will serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the complainant is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay compensation to the complainant equivalent to the amount of interest payable on the amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 1,02,50,000/- from 29.04.2015 to 21.06.2018 at the rate prescribed in Rule 15 of HRERA Rules, 2017. The respondent shall pay the amount so awarded within 45 days from the uploading of this order.

ALSO READ- HARYANA RERA COMPLAINT AGAINST TDI INFRASTRUCTURE

This post is written by Riya Singh.

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Real Estate Lawyers taking up cases of real estate disputes in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Baltana Kharar Mullanpur etc.