Can’t Charge Additional Amount On Occupation Certificate, Rewari Commission Orders HUDA To Refund Fee, Pay Compensation And Legal Expenses

The Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) liable of unfair trade practices for charging additional sum from the complainant for an occupation certificate even though the allotment letter for the plot was issued back in 1999. Brief Facts: Satinder Singh (“Complainant”) was granted a plot in Sector-4 at Urban Estate, Rewari, by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) based on an allotment letter issued on 4.8.1999. The complainant had made payments of an extension fee amounting to Rs. 31,350 on 12.12.2017 and an additional sum of Rs. 56,430 on 7.3.2018 when he applied for an occupation certificate on 27.3.2018. Despite having fulfilled these payment obligations, the complainant was compelled to make an additional extension fee payment of Rs. 1,25,400 in the year 2019 as a prerequisite for obtaining the occupation certificate. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”). The complainant argued that he had already completed construction on the plot and was, therefore, eligible for the occupation certificate without the need for an additional extension fee. Consequently, the complainant sought a refund of the excess extension fee, interest on the refunded amount, and compensation totalling Rs. One lac, intended to cover the harassment and litigation expenses incurred during the course of this dispute. HUDA clarified that the conveyance deed for the plot was executed on 2.11.2015, and the complainant's building plan had been rejected in April 2018 due to an excess of covered area, which was deemed non-compoundable. HUDA contended that the complainant still had an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,12,860, which needed to be cleared before he could obtain the occupation certificate. It pointed out that the occupation certificate was eventually issued in May 2019, after the required formalities were completed. Furthermore, it highlighted that the excess extension fee of Rs. 62,724 had been refunded to the complainant on 22.7.2021. HUDA firmly denied any inadequacy in the services they provided and strongly advocated for the dismissal of the complainant's case. Observations of the Commission: The District Commission noted that it was undeniably evident that HUDA had failed in their duty to provide a satisfactory level of service. They had unjustly and unlawfully levied an extension fee of Rs. 1,25,400 on the complainant, despite the fact that the complainant had already fulfilled his obligations by paying the extension fee for the year 2018, amounting to Rs. 56,430, on 7.3.2018. Furthermore, it noted that he had also made an additional payment of the extension fee for the year 2017, totalling Rs. 31,350, in year 2017. Remarkably, despite having successfully completed the construction on his property, the complainant was coerced into paying an additional extension fee of Rs. 1,25,400, de facto making it a prerequisite for obtaining an occupation certificate. Further, the District Commission noted that there was no compelling and substantial documentary evidence to support HUDA’s contention that the complainant was the defaulting party, either in terms of not promptly paying the extension fee or for failing to complete construction on the plot in alignment with the HUDA’s regulations. Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant and ordered HUDA to refund the excess extension fee of Rs. 1,25,400 to the complainant, after deducting the previously reimbursed amount of Rs. 62,724, thus resulting in a net refund of Rs. 62,676. It also ordered HUDA to compensate an amount of Rs. 50,000 for the mental distress and harassment experienced by the complainant. Additionally, it ordered HUDA to compensate Rs. 11,000 to the complainant to cover the litigation expenses. Case: Satinder Singh vs HUDA and 2 others Case No.: CC/110/2021 Advocate for the Complainant: Sh. Surender Kumar Advocate for the Respondent: Sh. Diwan Singh Click Here To Rad/Download Order

Can’t Charge Additional Amount On Occupation Certificate, Rewari Commission Orders HUDA To Refund Fee, Pay Compensation And Legal Expenses

Smita Singh

Tags