…….Complainant……..
Versus
The Art Housing Finance (India) Limited, earlier known as RAAS Housing Finance India Limited, 49, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram – 122015 Haryana through its Manager/Principal Officer. E-mail:- contact@arthfc.com.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ashok Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Ms. Gursheen Kaur, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant No.1 applied for a flat in Affordable Group Housing Project, SRS Palm Homes, at Sector-7, Palwal of M/s. SRS Real Estate Limited (Palm House) Faridabad. M/s. SRS Real Estate Limited (Palm House) Faridabad allotted a flat No. 207 on 2nd floor type B, Tower A-9, Sector-7, Palwal to the complainant No.1 in Affordable Group Housing Project, SRS Palm Homes, at Sector-7, Palwal through draw of lots held on 23.04.2015 vide allotment letter dated 25.04.2015. The total cost of the flat was Rs.16,58,507/- including EDC/IDC. The total carpet area of the flat was Rs. 449.245 sq. feet and area of balconies of flat was 82.45 sq. feet. The complainant No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.6,61,940/- with M/s. SRS Real Estate Limited (Palm House) Faridabad on the demand of M/s.SRS Real Estate Limited (Palm House) Faridabad . The complainants were not having sufficient funds to make the aforesaid payments to M/s. SRS Real estate Limited(Palm House) Faridabad hence the complainants approached the opposite party for loan for payment to M/s.SRS Real Estate Limited (Palm House) Faridabad vide application ID NO. 000431, file NO. DEL/000168, Branch Basant Kunj, applicant Mrs. Vandana Arya and co-applicant Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya and the opposite party sanctioned a home loan of Rs.14,76,311/- to the applicants vide loan sanction letter dated 02.07.2015.. The complainants availed credit facility in the nature of Home Loan of Rs.5,58,251/- from the opposite party on 20.06.2015. The loan account of the complainant was LXDELO5500-000000117. The EMI of the said loan was Rs.6491/- and the tenure of loan was 179 months. In June 2019, the complainants requested the opposite party for the foreclosure of the aforesaid loan account. Conversations between the opposite party and the complainants held through e-
mails dated 18.08.2019, 05.09.2019 and 07.09.2019 and ultimately the opposite party became ready to accept a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- from the complainants on account of full and final payment of the loan amount. It was also settled that on receipt of Rs.3,90,000/- from the complainants the opposite party would return the original set of property documents within 21 working days alongwith NOC. Vide email dated 05.09.2019 through Shri Guru Prasad Singh the opposite party intimated the aforesaid to the complainants. As per conversations and the email dated 05.09.2019 of the opposite party the complainants deposited a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- to the opposite party through DD bearing NO. 035533 dated 05.09.2019 drawn on IDBI Bank, Sector-16, Faridabad branch in favour of Art Housing Finance (India) Ltd., on account of full and final payment of the loan taken by the complainants which the opposite party accepted without any protest. The said cheque had been duly credited in the account of the opposite party. On receipt of the aforesaid sum of Rs.3,90,000/- from the complainants on account of full and final payment of the loan the opposite party nether returned the original papers of the flat nor issued NOC as promised through their email dated 05.09.2019 through Shri Guru Prasad Singh upon which the complainants repeatedly requested the opposite party to release all the original property documents and NOC to the complainants but the opposite party had not paid any heed to the requests of the complainants. Although the opposite party had received the full and final payment of their loan amount long ago but the opposite party had failed to release all the original property documents and NOC to the complainant s inspite of the repeated requests of the complainant. The complainant sent a legal
notice dated 08.01.2021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) release the original property documents of property flat No. 207, 2nd floor type B, Tower A-9, Sector-7, Palwal and NOC of the loan account to the complainants.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that admittedly on 05.09.2019, the complainant as well as answering opposite party entered into a memorandum of understanding for settlement of the loan account read with tripartite agreement dated 13.07.2015. as per terms and conditions of the said MOU it was agreed that the complainant would pay an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- to the answering opposite party against the total outstanding of Rs.5,22,364/-as on 06.09.2019. As per the said MOU, it was also agreed that he second party i.e complainant had assured the first party i.e answering opposite party not to disclose anything about the settlement to any third party or outside party. Further it was also mentioned that MOU shall become null and void in case of default on the part of the second party i.e. complainant herein. The complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.3,90,000/- in terms of the MOU
however, the complainant disclosed these facts to the builder as well as to the other third parties which would surely impact the rights of the answering opposite party and by doing so the complainant had defeated the valid claims like any govt. subsidy and other govt. scheme benefits. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– The Art Housing Finance (India) Limited with the prayer to: a) release the original property documents of property flat No. 207, 2nd floor type B, Tower A-9, Sector-7, Palwal and NOC of the loan account to the complainants. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Smt.Vandana Arya, Ex.C-1 – letter dated 25.04.2015, Ex.C-2 – sanction letter, Ex.C-3 to 5 – emails, Ex.C-6 - photocopy of demand draft dated 05.09.2019 for Rs.3,90,000/-, Ex.C-7 – legal notice, Ex.C-8 – reply to legal notice,, Ex.C-9 – legal notice dated 29.01.2021, Ex.C-10 - letter dated 01.02.2021 regarding reply to rejoinder dated 29.01.2021.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW-1/A – affidavit of Manoj Kumar Pal, Authorised Representative of opposite party Art Housing Finance Ltd., having its registered office at 107, Best Sky Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi, Memorandum of understanding
6. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to release the original property documents of property flat No. 207, 2nd floor type B, Tower A-9, Sector-7, Palwal and NOC of the loan account to the complainants.
7. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party agitated and argued at length for the MOU dated 5th September 2019 executed between the complainant and the opposite party for the non disclosure of the concession given by the opposite party to the complainant but the complainant has disclosed the other consumers of opposite party. That is why complainant should be penalized concession given by the opposite party to take it back.
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued at length and also shown the receipt of receiving of the demand draft vide Ex.C-6 which is endorsed by the opposite party that they will deliver the NOC within 21 days. It is evident from email vide Ex. C-5 in which opposite party admitted that they will issue the NOC and the MOU dated 5th September 2019 submittted by oppoiste party.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that in the agreement there is a witness who knows about the contents of the affidavit . It is possible that he may disclose the contents of the affidavit to the other customers of the opposite party. In the interest of justice, the complaint is allowed.
9. Opposite party is directed to:
a) release the original property documents of property flat No. 207, 2nd floor Type-B, Tower A-9, Sector-7, Palwal and NOC of the loan account to the complainants.
b) to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment..
c) pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 22.11..2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
