Haryana

StateCommission

A/556/2018

SUMISTA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First Appeal No.556 of 2018

Date of the Institution: 01.05.2018

Date of Final Hearing: 10.03.2023

Date of pronouncement: 03.04.2023

 

Sumista Devi wife of Sh. Wazir Singh, resident of H. No. C-10, Mini Secretariat, Distt. Sirsa.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. The Estate Officer, HUDA Hisar.
2. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Sirsa through its Branch Manager, Tehsil and Distt. Hisar.

                                                                                       …..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

 

Present:-    Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   None for the respondent No.2

 

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Delay of 168 days in filing the present appeal has been condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short Now ‘District Commission) vide which the complaint was allowed.

3.      Briefly stated, facts of the case as per the complainant are that she (complainant) had applied for allotment of 14 marla plot located in HUDA Sector-11, Fatehabad Distt. Fatehabad.  However to put forth her application, complainant raised a loan from opposite party (OP) No.2 and deposited the earnest money Rs.4,01,800/- i.e. 10% of the total amount with OP No.1 as er the pre-condition. The name of the complainant was selected for the allotment of plot vide draw dated 16.07.2015 and thus plot number 917-P, Sector 11, Fatehabad was allotted to her.  However, lateron owing to some personal reasons she did not wish to get the said plot and requested the OP No.1 to allow her to surrender the same and had moved an application coupled with an affidavit before the OP No.1 in the month of August, 2015 but OP No.1 did not accept the request of the complainant and informed her that her request to surrender her allotment, can be considered subject to the condition of her producing NOC from the OP.  Further complainant has alleged that the interest incurred towards the 10% of the amount has already been paid by her to the OP.  Due to all this the complainant was unable to obtain the NOC from OP No.2 as it could not issue any such NOC in her favour. Faced with this situation, she got issued a legal notice dated 15.11.2015 to OP No.1, which also filed an evasive reply thereto and refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

4.      Notice was issued to the OPs.   The OPs filed separate written version.  OP No.1 submitted that complainant submitted application form for surrender without mentioning her bank details in case of refund.  It was only after filing this false complaint that she submitted her bank detail on 04.05.2016 in the office of OP No.1 following which OP No.1 refunded the amount vide cheque No.000011 dated 30.05.2016 which was duly received by Sh. Amit Sihag, Advocate on 31.05.2016. As per rule, the refund has already been made by OP No.1. Objections about this compliant being misconceived, false, frivolous and that of estoppels etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.

5.      OP No.2 filed separate written version, submitting that due date of deposit of loan amount was 09.05.2015.   The OP No.2 has rightly charged interest @ 16.50% for the period of delay for 12 months 23 days) in receipt of refund from OP No.1 due to dispute between the complainant and OP No.1.   The OP No.2 had charged interest on the loan amount (i.e.10% cost of the plot) from her only from the date of application i.e. 10.11.2014 till repayment of whole of the loan amount by way of refund of the loan amount from HUDA or payment thereof by the complainant alongwith the interest for the delayed period, therefore until or unless the needful was not done by complainant. The answering respondent was not in a position to issue any NOC to the complainant. The complainant could not be absolved of her liability of making payment of interest to the answering OP for the period of delay in refund of the said loan amount by the OP No.1 due to its dispute with the complainant.  Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP so this complaint be dismissed as prayed for.

6.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.09.2017, which is as under:-

“So, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and directed to the respondents to pay Rs.4,01,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.  from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 02.03.2016 till its realization.  If the amount is already paid the same be considered at the time of execution. This order be complied with by the respondents within 30 days, from the date of passing of this order.”

 

7.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal awarding of compensation also.

8.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.S.K.Verma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence has been led during the prosecution of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

9.                 It is not disputed that complainant had applied for allotment of plot and deposited 10% of the total amount with the OP No.1.  It is also not disputed that the complainant had obtained loan from opposite party No.2 to pay the application money for booking. It is also not disputed that complainant was selected for the allotment of plot vide draw dated 16.07.2015.  However afterwards appellant-complainant requested the OP No.1 to surrender the plot vide letter dated 03.08.2015 (Ex.C-1), but, to no avail. She also requested the OP No.1 to refund the deposited amount which was denied. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that her department has refunded the amount vide cheque No.000011 dated 30.05.2016, which was duly received by Sh. Amit Sihag, Advocate on 31.05.2016.  The plea of the complainant-appellant was that she did not receive any amount from it.   Perusal of the file shows that the HUDA authorities have already refunded the amount to the advocate, who was not the party in the complaint or appeal. Moreover it is quite surprising as to when the complainant requested for surrender of the plot then why she was asked to produce NOC as she has already surrendered the plot in question, so the letter dated 17.09.2015 Ex.C-3 seems to be ridiculous.   Ex.C-6 shows that the HUDA authority has issued a cheque for Rs.4,01,800/- favouring some person on 31.05.2016, the signature of person does not confirm his name.  The HUDA authorities have not even obtained the identity of such person, who received the cheque.  Moreover OP No.2  banker was also not at fault for its inability to issue NOC because how could it be  expected to do so until it had received the loan amount alongwith interest accrued thereon either from HUDA by way of refund of application money and interest thereon from the applicant/complainant.  In view of the above said circumstances, it is clear that the HUDA authority cannot say that 10% amount stood refunded to complainant. However the lapse on the part of the HUDA in this regard has duly been safeguarded by District Commission in the operating part of the impugned order itself.  Moreover it was only after considering and weighing various factors that the learned Commission has not passed any order awarding compensation for the complainant appellant herein.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. 

10.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, the appeal stand dismissed on merits.

11.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

3^rd April, 2023           Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)