Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/487/2017

Suman Lata Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Estate Officer, Union Territory Chandigarh, Chandigarh Administration - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Jain

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/487/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/06/2017
Date of Decision	:	05/03/2018

 

Suman Lata Jain wife of Late Shri Gian Chand Jain, age 70 years resident of House NO.491, Sector 15, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

The Estate Officer, Union Territory Chandigarh, Chandigarh Administration, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sushil Jain, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ashok Gautam, Govt. Pleader for OP alongwith Ms. Sangeeta, Sr. Asstt. o/o OP.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that in response to the advertisement issued by the OP for allotment of industrial plots in Chandigarh of the size ranging from 1 Kanal to 4 kanal, the husband of the complainant submitted his application alongwith bank draft of Rs.2,500/- on 20.5.1981.  The husband of the complainant was not allotted the industrial plot and, therefore, the earnest money was required to be refunded by the OP, but, it failed to do so. The husband of the complainant expired on 23.4.2004 and thereafter she submitted application alongwith copy of death certificate on 7.1.2005 with the request to refund the earnest money alongwith interest. When the OP failed to take any action, the complainant submitted another detailed representation dated 18.5.2017, but, that too failed to yield any result. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix. However, it has been averred that vide memo dated 10.3.2005, 16.3.2006 and 13.9.2007, the complainant was requested to complete certain formalities in order to enable the OP to conclude the case of refund, but, she failed to do so. The complainant was required to furnish the original death certificate besides submitting the liability affidavit and indemnity bond of all the legal heirs of her deceased husband and their photographs, but, she failed to supply the same till date.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and learned GP for the OP. 
6.         The sole grouse of the Complainant is with regard to the refund of Rs.2500/- which her husband deposited with the OP on 20.05.1981. As the husband of the Complainant was not allotted the Industrial Plot which he applied for, therefore, this earnest money was required to be refunded by the OP, but till date the same has not been refunded, which led to the filing of the present Consumer Complaint. Evidently, the husband of the Complainant who applied for the aforesaid Industrial Plot expired on 23.04.2004 and after his death, the Complainant submitted an application in the year 2005, with a request to refund the earnest money, along with interest. The Complainant even submitted a detailed representation dated 18.5.2017 to the OP, which also yielded no results.
7.         The stand taken by the OP is that the Complainant was requested to complete certain formalities in order to enable it to conclude the case of refund, but as the Complainant failed to do so; hence, it is not deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant. 
8.         Perusal of Annexure R-2 the duly sworn affidavit of the husband of the Complainant i.e. the applicant of the Industrial Plot, clearly reveals that he gave an undertaking that he will not claim any interest on the earnest money. Admittedly, the Complainant never gave it in writing to the OP withdrawing the said undertaking or demanding the refund of the earnest money, nor she demanded interest thereon. There is no document on file to suggest if the Complainant is entitled to interest as against the undertaking given by her husband. The mere fact that the decision on the refund of the amount was delayed due to the pendency of litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not entitle the Complainant to wriggle out of the undertaking given by her husband or to be entitled to interest on the said amount. However, the fact remains that still the refund is pending with the OP, which needs to be refunded to the Complainant, but subject to the Complainant fulfilling all the pre-requisite formalities.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we dispose of the present Complaint with a direction to the OP to refund the earnest money of Rs.2500/- to the Complainant, subject to her fulfilling all the pre-requisite formalities, within a period of 30 days she complete all the requisite formalities. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”