DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Paramjit Kaur d/o Naranjan Singh Walia r/o House No.444, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.     Axis Bank through its Manager, SCO No.343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

2.     Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari, Haryana.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

                        None for OP No.1.

                        OP No.1 already exparte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.                           The complainant had applied to opposite party No.2 for allotment of a plot in Sector 1, Narnaul.  She had paid an amount of Rs.32,040/- alongwith the application. Copy of the registration card is C-1.  After being successful in the draw of lots, the complainant was allotted Plot No.410 vide allotment letter dated 3.7.2003.  All installments for the plot were paid by the complainant on time as per the details given in the complaint.  The complainant received a notice dated 31.12.2007 (C-3) whereby she was asked to pay additional amount of Rs.93,034/- towards additional price of the plot.  The complainant immediately approached her banker (opposite party No.1) to get a draft for the said amount prepared. The draft was prepared by opposite party No.1 in favour of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari on 28.1.2008.  As per earlier practice, the draft was to be sent by opposite party No.1 directly to opposite party No.2.  However, the complainant was surprised that the No Due Certificate was not sent by opposite party No.2. When she approached opposite party No.2, she was informed that the enhanced amount had not been credited in their account and now an amount of Rs.2,69,775/- was due from her, which included interest @ 15% per annum on the unpaid amount.  When the complainant approached the officials of opposite party No.1, she was told that the draft had already been sent to opposite party No.2.  However, on pursuing the matter, she realized that the draft had actually not been sent.  The complainant also got a certificate (C-5) from opposite party No.1 proving that the draft was actually prepared by it.  The complainant thereafter settled the accounts with opposite party No.2 by sending a fresh draft of Rs.2,69,775/-. 

                   She has thus filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  She has prayed for refund of the interest amount of Rs.2,37,134/- besides refund of the amount received in excess. The complainant has also prayed for compensation and costs of litigation. 

2.                           Opposite party No.1 in its written reply stated that the demand draft of Rs.93,034/- in favour of opposite party No.2 had been prepared and handed over to the complainant.  However, it has been denied that it had any role in sending the draft to opposite party No.2.  It has also been denied that it ever assured the complainant of sending the demand draft directly to opposite party No.2.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                           Notice of the complaint was sent for the service of opposite party No.2 through registered AD letter on 18.7.2012.  However, neither the same was received back undelivered nor any acknowledgement was received.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that opposite party No.2 had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 on the date fixed. Hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.8.2012.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           Opposite party No.1 has specifically pleaded in its written statement that the demand draft was handed over to the complainant.  It has also specifically denied that it had any role in sending the demand draft directly to opposite party No.2. However, the complainant has not placed on record any document to prove that opposite party No.1 was required to send the draft to opposite party No.2 directly. Annexure C-4 is only a copy of the “Specimen of Indemnity Letter for Issuing Duplicate Draft”.  Annexure C-5 is only a copy of the certificate given by opposite party No.1 regarding purchase of the demand draft in question by the complainant, which is otherwise not disputed by opposite party No.1.  These two documents do not anywhere state that the original draft was lost at the end of opposite party No.1 or that it was required to send the draft directly to opposite party No.2.  Therefore, both these documents are of no help to the case of the complainant.  The complainant has also failed to file any rejoinder to controvert the stand of opposite party No.1.  

6.                           Thus, looking at the entire situation, we have not found any substantial evidence in favour of the allegations of the complainant to prove that the bank/opposite party No.1 was required to send the demand draft directly to HUDA.  Accordingly, burden cannot be placed on opposite party No.1 for the excess interest paid by the complainant to opposite party No.2 on account of non delivery of the draft to opposite party No.2. 

                   Even no directions can be passed against opposite party No.2 for refund of the interest amount which has been charged due to default. 

7.                           In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. However, if the amount of draft has remained unrealized, opposite party No.1 shall return the same immediately to the complainant upon completion of requisite formalities, if any.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                                                                 Sd/-

01.04.2013.                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER