BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.199 of 2021.
Date of institution: 06.08.2021.
Date of decision:22.04.2022.
Darshan Singh son of Sh. Dal Singh, resident of Village Khanpur, Teshil and District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Housing Board, Sector-4, Kurukshetra through its Estate Officer, Kurukshetra.
- Housing Board, Haryana through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Darshan Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the respondents developed Housing Board Colony, Sector-29, Kurukshetra by way of carving houses/flats of different dimensions including the flats of economical weaker section under BPL scheme. The complainant applied under the BPL scheme vide application No.21536 for registration of EWS flat and the complainant was allotted flat No.542FF in the draw of lot vide allotment memo No.HBH/CRO(PM)/2011/583 dt. 10.06.2011. It is alleged that the complainant deposited the installments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter and deposited total amount of Rs.2,49,400/-. The respondents handed over the possession of the flat to the complainant but the newly constructed flats were in dilapidated condition and worsen type of material was used in its construction. Hence, the complainant requested for surrender of flat and the respondents requested the same vide letter No.HBH/KKR/2017/1043 dt. 24.07.2017. The complainant visited pillar to post for the refund of the deposited amount but the respondents did not refund the amount of Rs.2,04,453/- to the complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the respondents have already accepted the request of the llottee for surrender of flat vide his application dt. 23.06.2017 which has been received by the office of respondents. The respondent No.1 further recommended the refund of Rs.2,01,453/- after deduction of amount of Rs.49,501/- as per terms and conditions of allotment and Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and Housing Board Haryana (Allotment Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972 to the Chief Revenue Officer (PM) Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula vide memo No.HBH/EM/2018/420 dt. 30.01.2018. The complainant was asked to wait for refund as the Housing Board has prepared a seniority list of all such allottees and is making the payment of refund of these persons according to their turn as per seniority list. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C24 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the complainant has argued that the respondents-Housing Board developed Housing Board Colony, Sector-29, Kurukshetra by way of carving houses/flats of different dimensions including the flats of economical weaker section under BPL scheme. It is further argued that the complainant applied under the BPL scheme vide application No.21536 for registration of EWS flat and the complainant was allotted flat No.542FF in the draw of lot vide allotment memo No.HBH/CRO(PM)/2011/583 dt. 10.06.2011. It has been further argued that the complainant deposited the installments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter and deposited total amount of Rs.2,49,400/-. It has been further argued that the respondents handed over the possession of the flat to the complainant but it was the big surprise for the complainant to find out that the newly constructed flats were in dilapidated condition and worsen type of material was used in its construction. Hence, the complainant requested for surrender of flat and the respondents accepted the same vide letter No.HBH/KKR/2017/1043 dt. 24.07.2017. The complainant visited pillar to post for the refund of the deposited amount but the respondents did not refund the amount of Rs.2,04,453/- to the complainant. It has been further argued that despite of several visits by the complainant, respondents did not refund the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed this present complaint.
7. Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Adv. for the respondents has argued that the respondents-Housing Board have prepared a seniority list of all such allottees and is making the payment of refund of these persons according to their turn as per seniority list. He has further stated that as per Clause-13A of the rules of Housing Board, Haryana vide notification dt. 30.11.2018, Consequences of surrender of flat after taking possession is mentioned which is as under:-
”If any allottee surrenders the flat at any time after taking possession of the same, 50% of the entire amount deposited by allottee would be forfeited alongwith the EMI due and balance will be refunded without interest.”
He has further stated that in view of above-said clause, 50% of the entire amount deposited by allottee would be forfeited alongwith the EMI due and balance will be refunded without interest. He has further stated that as per Annexure-R4, complainant had given the application in the Housing Board that he had taken the house No.542FF on 14.06.2016 and has paid the installments. He has further stated in the application that his parents have been ailing, hence, he cannot deposit more installments of the Housing Board. Hence, his earnest money alongwith interest be refunded back to him. Rebutting his arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant is a poor person. His money is lying with the respondents since the year 2011 and after a lapse of 11 years, respondents have not refunded his amount. Although he is agreed to pay the amount of Rs.2,01,453/- which he has undertaken to pay as per the turn of the complainant according to the seniority list.
8. It is the year 2022. A long time of 11 years has already been elapsed. Respondents have not shown any seniority list of the allottees who have surrendered their flats to the respondents. Arbitrarily, respondents cannot be allowed to retain the amount of Rs.2,01,453/- lying deposited with the respondents.
9. Thus, as a sequel of our aforesaid discussion, respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,01,453/- to the complainant within one month from today. In default, the aforesaid amount shall carry a penal interest of 9% p.a. Hence, the present complaint is accepted.
10. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:22.04.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
