PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                        CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 61/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

1. Nandita Mallick

W/O-Sanjaya Kumar Patra,

2. Nitambini Mallick,

W/O- Late Kailash Chandra Mallick,

Both are residing

          C/O-Pramod Kumar Naik,

          At-Rugudi Banda, Dhankauda, Via-Remed,

          Sambalpur.                                                      ………………......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. CEO, Steel Authority of India Limited,

Rourkela Steel Plant,

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. R.Gupta Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P                         :- Sri. S.K. Nanda, Adv. & Associates

Date of Filing:25.04.2023,Date of Hearing :07.11.2023,Date of Judgement : 08.01.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant No.1 is the daughter of late Kailash Chandra Mallick. As per form No.410 and bank reference No. DUE 127 7535 application was made before O.P. for allotment of a quarter. Husband of Complainant No.1 is working at Sambalpur and Complainant No.2 residing with her daughter, Complainant No.1 Kailash Chandra purchased the application and deposited Rs. 5900/-. It was duely filled up along with EMD of Rs. 30,000/- and deposited on 15.01.2021 with O.P. Mr. Kailash Chandra suddenly died on 27.03.2021. The Complainants through telephonic message knew that one quarter G-207, sector-6 Rourkela has been allotted in favour of Mr. Kailash Chandra. The O.P. was requested several time to hand-over the allotment letter when the Complainant NO.2 submitted identity proof and death certificate of Mr. Kailash Chandra. The staff of O.P. told that as no amount has been deposited after provisional allotment order the Complainant No.2 has to deposit the amount. On 13.12.2021 the Complainant No.2 received a letter from O.P. vide letter No. TS/CA/2847 dated 08.12.2021 in the name of Mr. Kailash Chandra. The Complainant No.2 replied the O.P. vide letter dated 18.12.2022. The O.P. has not taken any step neither allotted the quarter in the name of Complainant No.2 nor returned the EMD of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant No.1, the nominee as per application. Hence this complaint.
2. The O.P. after appearance in version submitted that vide circular dated 26.12.2020 ex-employees of Rourkela steel plant(RSP), their spouse etc. were invited for allotment of specific cheap type1 room 1BR(LT) quarter situated at Industrial Township, Rourkela “ As is where is basis” and “No complaint basis”. The Complainants filed the complaint in wrong place and jurisdiction of this Commission is challenged. The Complainants are not consumers of the O.Ps.

The O.P. admitted the receipt of application dated 15.01.2021 of Mr. Kailash Chandra and provisional allotment order dated 27.08.2021 against quarter No. G/207, sector-6, Rourkela advising him to deposit requisite amount within 15 days from issue of provisional allotment order and to execute a licence agreement on non-judicial stamp paper.

The Complainant No.2 collected the provisional allotment order on behalf of Mr. Kailash Chandra on 20.09.2021 but not deposited the requisite amount within stipulated period. Notice dated 08.12.2021 was issued to Mr. Kailash Chandra but thereafter also amount was not deposited. Vide order dated 21.12.2021 the provisional allotment order was cancelled. The EMD deposited has been for feited. There is no deficiency in service of the O.P. and acted as per circular dated 26.12.2020. The Complainants are not entitled for any relief.

3. Perused the documents filed by both the parties. It is admission of both the parties that form No.410 and Rs. 5900/- has been deposited with O.P. vide journal No. DUE 1277535. Mr. Kailash Chandra Submitted the application with declaration dated 15.01.2021 along with mandate form (Annexure IV) and cancelled cheque No. 742116 of S.B. I, Rourkela. From Provisional allotment letter dated 27.08.2021 of the O.P. it reveals that G 207 sector-6 Rourkela quarter was allotted to Mr. Kailash Chandra. From letter No. 2847 dated 08.12.2021 it reveals that letter has been addressed to Mr. Kailash Chandra and Complainants admit the receipt of the same. On 18.12.2021 the Complainant No.2 intimated the O.P. to allot the quarter in her name due to death of Mr. Kailash Chandra on 27.03.2021. Death certificate of Mr. Kailash Chandra has been filed.

The O.P. has filed circular dated 21.12.2021 only.

4. After perusal of the documents it reveals that Mr. Kailash Chandra followed due procedures and deposited Rs. 30,000/- EMD with the O.P, as per circular dated 26.12.2020 and allotment of quarter was made. It is the admission of O.P. that the Complainant No.2 collected the allotment letter dated 27.08.2021. The Complainant No.2 after collecting death certificate and receipt of letter dated 08.12.2021 of O.P. prayed for allotment in her name along with submitting death certificate of Mr. Kailash Chandra.

The Complainant has the requisite criteria for allotment of quarter in her name but the O.P. issued notice against a dead person. The procedure adopted by the O.P. is defective. It was their duty to transfer the allotment letter in the name of Complainant but the O.P. failed to do so. Accordingly, the cancellation order No. 2847 dated 08.12.2021 of the O.P. is not accepted and illegal. The Complainant No.2 is entitled for the quarter allotment in her name.

5. The Complainant No.1 is the wife of Sanjaya Kumar Patra and daughter of Kailash Chandra. Mr. Patra is working at Sambalpur and both Complainants staying at Sambalpur. As the Complainants are staying at Sambalpur this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
6. The O.P. challenged the ‘Service’ provided. The Complainants are heirs of deceased Mr. Kailash Chandra, who deposited Rs. 30,000/- EMD, it is not denied by the O.P. for allotment of quarter the O.P. not followed due procedure, allotted the quarter in the name of dead person, without substituting the legal heirs. Procedural latches are there. As consideration/EMD has been deposited after purchase of form for Rs. 5900/-, the Complainants are Consumers of the O.P. and as per Sec.2 (5) complaint can be filed by legal heirs/representative of the deceased consumer. The Complaint is maintainable.
7. The O.P. is deficient in its service by not providing proper service to Mr. Kailash Chandra and after him, his nominee Complainant No.1 and wife, Complainant No.2.

Accordingly, following order is passed:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 35,900/- with 7% interest P.A. w.e.f. 15.01.2021 to Complainants within one month of this order. In case of non-refund the O.P. shall be liable to pay interest @12% P.A. till realisation and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The O.P. is liable to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainants.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8^th day of Jan. 2024.

Supply free copy to the parties.