BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 738/2010 against C.C. 65/2009, Dist. Forum,Sanga Reddy
Between:
The Chief Manager
State Bank of Hyderabad
Siddipet, Opp. RDO’s Office
Siddipet, Medak Dist. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 3
And
1. M. A. Hameed
S/o. Gaffer, Age: 64 years
Retd. Govt. Employee
H.No. 10-1-153/1,
Charavadan Street
Siddipet Town, Medak Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. The Vice-Chairman &
Housing Commissioner
A.P. Housing Board
Gruhakalpa, M.G. Road
Hyderabad.
3. The Executive Engineer
Housing Board, Vinayaka Nagar
Nizamabad Town & Dist. *** Respondents/
O.Ps. 1 & 2
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. CH. Siva Reddy
Counsel for the Resps: R1 – P.I.P.
M/s. D. Ranganath Kumar (R2& R3)
F.A. 944/2010 against C.C. 65/2009, Dist. Forum,Sanga Reddy
Between:
1. The Vice-Chairman &
Housing Commissioner
A.P. Housing Board
Gruhakalpa, M.G. Road
Hyderabad.
2. The Executive Engineer
Housing Board, Vinayaka Nagar
Nizamabad Town & Dist. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 & 2
And
1. M. A. Hameed
S/o. Gaffer, Age: 64 years
Retd. Govt. Employee
H.No. 10-1-153/1,
Charavadan Street
Siddipet Town, Medak Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. The Chief Manager
State Bank of Hyderabad
Siddipet, Opp. RDO’s Office
Siddipet, Medak Dist. *** Respondent/
Op3
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. D. Ranganath Kumar
Counsel for the Resps: R1- PIP.
M/s. CH. Siva Reddy (R2)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) These appeals are preferred viz., F.A. No. 738/2010 by the Op3 bank and F.A. 944/2010 by Ops 1 & 2 Housing Board against the order of the Dist. Forum directing the bank to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 20.6.2003 to 17.1.2007, and the housing board to register the house and refund the excess amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- paid by the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from 29.3.2006 till realization together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
2) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression.
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a retired government employee and sought for allotment of an independent house at Siddipet by virtue of notification dt. 4.12.2001. Accordingly R2 intimated by letter dt. 8.3.2002 that the house would be allotted on payment of 40% of the cost initially under hire purchase basis. As per the conditions the total cost of the house was Rs. 4 lakhs. He had paid an amount of Rs. 1,60,450/- by 6.5.2003. He had applied for a loan from the bank in order to pay balance of Rs. 2,40,000/- and get it registered in his favour. It was sanctioned after deposit of Rs. 40,000/- by him. The bank has issued Mail Transfer Advice (MTA) on 20.6.2003 with a covering letter. However, the housing board did not encash the same. It was credited on 17.1.2007 in the account of the housing board. The housing board had demanded interest for 42 months by its letter dt. 16.3.2007. There was prolonged correspondence.
The housing board had agreed to register the house only after receipt of interest amount. Later the cost of the house was revised to Rs. 4,98,750/-. He had paid the remaining balance of Rs. 1,48,750/- and sought for registration of house. Since the interest accrued on the amount was not paid, the housing board was not registering the house. This amounts to deficiency in service. Both the bank as well as the housing board committed deficiency in service and therefore sought for compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs towards mental agony, Rs. 1 lakh towards damages and direct the housing board to register the house and the bank to pay interest over the said payment.
4) The housing board resisted the case. While admitting that it had conducted draw of lots on 21.3.2002 at Siddipet and the complainant was selected for purchase of a house on hire purchase basis, however it did not admit the allegation that it had allotted house No. 40 MIG-II at Siddipet. The bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,40,000/-. When the complainant has submitted a representation on 29.3.2006 for registration of the house, they have verified the account and found that an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was not credited. When enquired with the bank it had sent the advice and the same was realized on 17.1.2007. There was a delay of 42 months in releasing the amount. The amount was not credited due to the negligence of the bank, and therefore it could not register house. The allottees are at liberty to pay the amounts either by way of challan or D.D. The bank must send the DD as it had sanctioned the loan. Sending of MTA was against the procedure contemplated under the rules of A.P. Housing Board. The bank had the amount from 20.6.2003 to 17.1.2007. The complainant had to pay interest on Rs. 98,900/- from 20.6.2003 to 16.1.2007 so as to execute the sale deed in his favour. There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The bank equally resisted the case. It alleged that it has sent the Mail Transfer Advice (MTA) by its letter dt. 20.6.2003. Though MTA was received the amount was not collected by sending it to the bank. After verification the amount was credited on 17.1.2007. The housing board should have returned the MTA to the bank immediately or presented the same to Vinayaka Nagar Branch instead of keeping it in their files for a long period. Therefore it was not liable to pay any compensation or interest. There was no deficiency in service on its and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A35 marked while the housing board filed the affidavit evidence of its Executive Engineer and the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its Chief Manager and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that bank was guilty for not sending the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- and therefore directed it to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 20.6.2003 to 17.1.2007 while the housing board was directed to register the house and refund the excess amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- paid by the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from 29.3.2006 till realization together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
8) Aggrieved by the said decision the bank preferred the appeal F.A. 738/2010 contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. In fact the complainant did not seek refund of Rs. 2,40,000/-. It ought to have seen that MTA was sent on 20.6.2003, while the housing board sent the MTA for the first time on 16.3.2007. It could have sent it and collected the amount. Awarding of interest @ 12% p.a., is unjust. It has charged only 9% interest on the housing loan availed by the complainant. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
9) Equally the housing board preferred the appeal F.A. No. 944/2010 contending that the Dist. Forum erred in directing it (the housing board) to refund Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from 29.3.2006 being the excess amount paid by the complainant without any basis. The complainant did not pay any excess amount. As per the agreement the allottee has to pay the difference if any between the tentative cost and the final cost. He has to pay the same. The Dist. Forum ought to have seen that MTA is not a negotiable instrument such as cheque or demand draft. The Dist. Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint for non-compliance of statutory requirement of issuance of notice u/s 68 of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1986 before filing the complaint. Therefore they prayed that the appeal be allowed.
10) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis- appreciation of fact or law?
11) At the outset, we may state that there is no dispute that house bearing No. 40 MIG-II at Siddipet was allotted to the complainant by the housing board at a cost of Rs. 4,98,750/-. The complainant had paid Rs. 1,60,450/- towards down payment of 40% of the amount evidenced under challans dt. 10.1.2003 and 6.5.2003. It is not in dispute that the complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- from the bank. While he had deposited Rs. 40,000/- in the bank for sanction of loan, the bank had to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- to the housing board towards cost of the house. Instead of sending the amount to the housing board by way of demand draft or cheque it had sent through MTA on 20.6.2003. The said amount was not encashed by the housing board on the ground that the amount has to be sent either by way of cheque or demand draft. However, there is no proof that MTA was sent. After a prolonged correspondence the said amount was sent on 17.1.2007 to the housing board. In other words for a period of 42 months the amount was kept with the bank. Due to non-payment of this amount to the housing board an amount of Rs. 98,900/- was accumulated towards interest which was directed to be paid by the complainant.
12) The question is whether the bank was liable to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- together with interest as ordered by the Dist. Forum. It may be stated herein that the bank has paid this amount. The complainant himself alleges that there was delay in payment of this amount to the housing board and from 20.6.2003 to 17.1.2007 the said amount was lying with the bank, and in the process the housing board had collected an interest of Rs. 98,900/- and that amount the bank was liable to pay. We may state herein that the complainant himself did not seek Rs. 2,40,000/- from the bank. It is not known how the Dist. Forum could award this amount to be paid by the bank. Evidently the bank has credited this amount on 17.1.2007. The bank ought to have verified whether MTA was sent to the housing board and encahsed by the housing board. It did not verify whether the said amount was credited to the housing board account or not. Therefore an amount of Rs. 98,900/- that was collected from the complainant towards interest, the bank was liable to pay. It was the fault of the bank.
13) Equally the housing board was directed to pay the excess amount paid by the complainant i.e., Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest @ 9% from 29.3.2006 till the date of realization. It is not known how the Dist. Forum could come to a conclusion that the complainant was entitled to Rs. 1,36,000/- which according to the Dist. Forum paid in excess. The said relief was also not prayed by the complainant. Both parties had filed calculation memos, a perusal of which would show that only an amount of Rs. 94/- was still due by the complainant.
14) It was represented across the bar that the said house was sold away by the complainant to a third party. It is for the housing board to execute the sale deed on receipt of whatever amount due to it either in favour of complainant or in favour of a third party. The order of the Dist. Forum directing the housing board to pay Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest @ 9% from 29.3.2006 till the date of realization cannot be sustained. Therefore the said order has been set-aside.
15) In the result the appeal preferred by the bank is allowed in part directing it to pay Rs. 98,900/- together with interest as awarded by the Dist. Forum. The order of the Dist. Forum passed against the housing board is set-aside. Consequently the complaint is allowed in part directing the bank to pay Rs. 98,900/- to the complainant together with interest and costs as awarded by the Dist. Forum. Rest of the order is set-aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 20. 12. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
