Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/55/2015

Karnail Singh S/o Mangat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Housing and construction Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No…55 of 2015.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 12.02.2015.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 30.03.2016.

Karnail Singh aged about 55 years son of Sh. Mangat Ram resident of H. No. 981, Harbanspura Colony, S.D.Public School, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., Commercial Belt, Sector-17, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.

                                                                                                                                           …Respondent.

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Complainant in person. 

               Sh. Sushil Kaushal, Advocate, counsel for respondent.  

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Karnail Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3000/- alongwith interest deposited on account of application money for allotment of plot and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.     

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the OP invited the applications from the persons who belongs to BPL Category for allotment of some plots. Accordingly, the complainant applied for one plot vide application No. 2116 dated 7.4.2012 and deposited Rs. 3000/- vide draft No. 016669 dated 7.4.2012 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank with the OP. Thereafter, on 27.6.2013, the draw in respect of the allotment of plots under BPL category was done but the complainant remained unsuccessful. After that, the complainant carticated the OP to get back his deposited money again and again but the official of the OP company averted the complainant on one pretext or the other. In this way, the OP remained failed to refund the application money of Rs. 3000/- despite 1 ½ years lapse from the date of draw i.e. 27.6.2013. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as present complaint is gross abuse of process of law, not maintainable, complainant has deliberately not disclosed the material facts that he has already received Rs. 3203/- vide cheque No. 597046, complaint is time                   barred as the present complaint has been filed after two years and on merit all the allegations were denied and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. However, it is admitted that complainant remains unsuccessful in the draw and lastly prayed that as the amount of the complainant has been refunded through UCO Bank. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and document such as Photo copy of counter part of receipt of depositing amount of Rs. 3000/- dated 7.4.2012 Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence photo copy of letter dated 27.3.2015 issued to Branch Manager UCO Bank by the Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. i.e. OP Annexure R-1, Photo copy of certificate of UCO Bank dated 30.3.2014 as Annexure R-2 and photo copy of statement of account for the period of 16.8.2013 to 21.8.2013 of Ansal Housing Construction Ltd. with the UCO Bank as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.         We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant applied for allotment of plot vide application No. 2116 on dated 7.4.2012 and deposited an application money of Rs. 3000/- vide demand draft bearing No. 016669 dated 7.4.2012 with the OP. It is admitted that on 27.06.2013 draw in respect of the allotment of plots under the BPL Category was done but complainant remained unsuccessful. The only plea of the complainant is that he has not received the amount of Rs. 3000/- from the OP till today whereas the version of the OP is that an amount of Rs. 3203/- i.e . Rs. 3000/- application money plus Rs. 203/- interest have been refunded to the complainant through UCO Bank, which is evident from the certificate dated 23.3.2014 issued by UCO Bank (Annexure R-2) which was issued in response to the letter issued by the OPs on dated 273.2015 (Annexure R-1). Learned counsel for the OP further draw our attention towards account statement of UCO Bank (Annexure R-3) wherein at serial No.238 dated 20.8.2013 an amount of Rs. 3203/- has been shown debited from the account of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.

8.                     We have perused the certificate dated 30.3.2014 (Annexure R-2) issued by the UCO Bank and account statement Annexure R-3 carefully wherein the UCO Bank has not disclosed the fact that by which mode they have made the payment of Rs. 3202/- to the complainant Karnail Singh, even, no bank account number of the complainant has been mentioned in the certificate issued on 30.3.2014 (Annexure R-2) and Bank account statement (Annexure R-3) in which an amount of Rs. 3203/- have been transferred from the account of Ansal Housing Construction Ltd.. Mere mentioning that an amount of Rs. 3203/- have been paid on 20.08.2013 is not sufficient to discharge the liability. It may be that amount of Rs. 3203/- is lying with the UCO Bank or debited/transferred in the wrong account of any other person. In the absence of cogent evidence, that amount of Rs. 3203/- has been actual paid to the complainant by way of bank account or by way of cheque or draft, we are unable to held that OP has refunded the amount to the complainant.

9.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that OP has totally failed to prove that amount of Rs. 3000/- have been refunded to the complainant. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP to refund a sum of Rs. 3000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 27.6.2013, the date of draw, till its actual realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. However, it is made clear that the OP is at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the UCO Bank as per law, if so advised. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 30.03.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.