The Army Welfare Housing Organization is the complainant that they were given 5 acres of land in Ambala City by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in 1991. They got the possession in 1993 and made final payment to HUDA in 1996. Surprisingly, in 1997 HUDA demanded additional payment for an enhanced compensation pursuant direction/ verdict of the Additional Dist. Judge in 1992.
The Authority was never informed to the complainant AWHO about the additional payment before the final payment was made by the AWHO. Consequently, AWHO paid the enhanced compensation as determined by the Court. HUDA’s demand was after more than it years and AWHO sent a legal notice and sought for a clarification of the inflated demand. But HUDA threatened to impose penalty and alleged that the land was a part of green belt which was illegal.
The AWHO requested for an exemption of the land from green belt but no response received from the HUDA.Instead, they were raising further demands in 2000, 2005 and 2008, which were paid by AWHO under protest.
The AWHO paid so far which was beyond the actual cost of the land, therefore AWHO filed a complaint seeking refund of the amounts paid, along with interest and costs. HUDA argued that there was a clause no. 22 which contemplates that disputes should refer to the Arbitrator as stipulated in the Allotment Letter, therefore commission could not entertain the complaint.
NCDRC held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is an additional remedy and is not restricted by any specific law. The Commission placed reliance on the Case of Ms/. Emmar MGF Land Limited VsAftab Singh I (2019) CPJ 5 (SC) that an arbitration clause in an agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to entertain a Complaint. Moreover, Section 3 of the said Act contemplates that the provisions are supplementary to and not derogatory to any other existing law.
