Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 9170
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
T P S Mann, President
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) – Appellant
Versus
Daya Chand Gupta – Respondent
Consumer Appeal No.90 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sikander Bakshi
For the Respondents: Shri Abhimanyu Batra
The court affirmed that consumers are entitled to refunds and compensation for unfulfilled obligations by service providers, as established under consumer protection laws.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Appeal against order of District Commission allowing complaint of deficiency in service - Imposition of penalty and compensation directed by District Commission upheld - The OPs failed to complete the development work on the allotted plot and charged unjustified fees and interests - The OPs' defense arguments regarding connectivity issues were found unmeritorious. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Consumer Complaints - The allottee entitled to refund of excess payments with interest due to non-fulfillment of service obligations by the OPs. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The complainant was allotted a residential plot but the OPs delayed necessary development work and charged fees not stipulated in the allotment agreement, prompting the complainant to file a complaint for redressal.
Findings of Court:
The court found the OPs liable for not completing required development work and charging unjustified fees, leading to the complaint's success.
Issues: The main issue debated was the provision of services promised in the allotment of a residential plot and the related liabilities for interest and fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that failure to provide essential services warranted the refund of excess charges levied on the complainant, establishing the OPs’ liability for lack of service.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant has filed an appeal regarding an order against deficiency in services provided. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the op provided a defense against the complaint based on jurisdiction and maintainability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding reasonableness of fees charged and obligations on development. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court’s observations on op's failure to meet development obligations and the unjustified fees charged. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final decisions regarding the dismissal of the appeal and the order for reimbursement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.90 of 2023 Date of Filing:31.01.2023 Date of Order:26.05.2025
1. Estate Officer-I, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Gurugram/Pataudi, Haryana.
2. HUDA, now HSVP, through Administrator, Gurgugram.
3. The Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula.
…..Appellants Versus Daya Chand Gupta, Advocate S/o Shri Tara Chand Gupta, R/o House No.24, Sector-15, Part-I, Gurugram.
..…Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.
Present:- ShriSikander Bakshi, counsel for the appellants.
ShriAbhimanyu Batra, counsel for the respondent alongwithShri Daya Chand Gupta-complainant-respondent in person.
O R D E R
T.P.S. MANN J.
Appellants-Opposite Parties-HSVP has filed the instant appeal under Section
41 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 for challenging the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon whereby complaint filed by him (Daya Chand Gupta) was allowed with directions:-
“Thus, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, we impose a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- on the OPs and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,01,193/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realization, to pay interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.17,34,666/- which was deposited by the complainant from 10.03.2014 onwards and not to charge Rs.51,750/- which they were claiming as extension fee. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony in respect of which a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been imposed upon the OPs to be paid to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2011, residential plot No.6GP category residential measuring 1 Kanal in Sector-2 Pataudi at Urban Estate Pataudi on free hold basis was allotted to Manish Hora vide memo No.Z- 0002/E0004/UEE30/GALOT/0000000027 dated 10.02.2011. The total cost of the plot was Rs.46,25,775/- of size 450 sq. mtrs. @ Rs.9790/- per square meter. On 28.01.2011, 09.03.2011 and 02.07.2013, allottee deposited Rs.4,40,600/-, Rs.7,15,844/- and 12,95,000/- respectively. Out of this amount, the OPs adjusted Rs.11,40,543/- as principal amount and Rs.1,54,457/- as delayed interest. Thereafter, on 10.03.2014, the allottee also deposited Rs.6,19,000/- and out of this, the OPs adjusted Rs.5,94,123/- as principal amount and Rs.8293/- as delayed interest. Thereafter, vide memo dated 09.04.2014/02.05.2014, the aforesaid plot was allotted to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.7,86,382/- on 29.12.2014, Rs.7,16,995/- on 28.12.2015, Rs.6,28,774/- on 28.12.2016 as demanded by the OPs. The OPs did not complete the development work such as sewer and erection of electric poles etc. The OPs without doing any development work, offered the possession of the plot on 20.01.2014, which was illegal, unjust and improper. The paper work has been done by the opposite parties in order to extract money and cheat the complainant by charging interest and extension compounding fee. The complainant moved an application under section 6 of The Right to Information Act to the Estate Officer, HUDA Gurugram on 25.06.2019, which was duly re
