Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 682.
Instituted on : 20.12.2016.
Decided on : 23.10.2018.
Mahender Kumar s/o Sh. Mulakh Raj resident of 1426/20, Bhagwan Dass Colony, Civil Hospital Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M.D./The Manager, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. C13-14, Sector-6, Panchkula-134109.
- The Manager, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Sector-31, Faridabad.
- The Manager Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., I.M.T., Kheri Sadh, Rohtak.
- HDFC Bank, Branch Delhi Road, Rothak Through its Branch Manager.
- Canara Bank, Branch Chhottu Ram Chowk, Delhi Road, Rothak Through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ajay Indora, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vishal Bhatia, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 to 3.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.4.
Opposite party No.5 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has applied for allotment of industrial plot measuring 1050 sq.mts. vide diary no.545 dated 15.03.2012 with the OPs. That complainant had paid 10% of sale price of plot amounting to Rs.945000/- plus Rs.7500/- processing fee total Rs.952500/- as per demand of OP No.1 to 3 by way of cheque dated 14.03.2012. That on 20.06.2013 OP/respondents allotted the plot to the complainant at Gurgaon. That OPs enhanced the rate of plot and the complainant had to deposit the enhanced rate by depositing an amount of Rs.1941000/- in HDFC Bank/OP No.4 to the account of OPs on 21.09.2013. That the complainant had deposited Rs.1215875/- on 15.01.2015 and Rs.1532859/- on 30.06.2014 and also deposited TDS amounting to Rs.46898/-. That OP No.1 to 3 illegally and wrongfully imposed several conditions on the complainant and accordingly in the compelling circumstances, the complainant surrendered his plot on 17.04.2015 and OPs no.1 to 3 only refunded Rs.5050217/- on 12.06.2015 whereas the complainant had paid Rs.5634734/- to the OP No.1 to 3. That the OP No.1 to 3 has not refunded the balance amount of Rs.584517/- despite repeated requests of the complainant. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.584517/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party No.5 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.02.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.1 to 3 in their reply has submitted that the complainant has given his acceptance to the terms and conditions contained in the Regular Letter of Allotment vide acceptance of RLA dated 17.10.2013. That the enhancement has to be paid by each and every allottee as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the regular allotment letter. That the complainant had surrender the plot at his own will and the refund was made as per terms and conditions of the Estate Management Policy 2011/15. That as per clause 6.2(i) of the Chapter 6 of the Estate Management policy 2011, “whenever an allottee surrenders the plot/shed at anytime within 2 years of allotment, the Corporation will refund the full principal amount paid by the allottee in such cases, without any interest within a period of 30 days of the receipt of surrender request”, which was agreed by the complainant in clause 3 of the Appendix A of the Regular Letter of Allotment. The complainant had paid Rs.5050217/- as Principal and Rs.584517/- as interest accordingly the refund of principal amount after deducting the amount of Rs.7500/- of processing fee which was not refundable. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.4 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is a banker which was authorized by the HSIIDC and the amount deposited by the applicants stood transferred in the account of HSIIDC. Regarding all the other contents of the complaint it is submitted that the same were not relevant with the answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand opposite party No 1 to 3 in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence. Opposite party No.4 in its reply has tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A and closed his evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the complainant he had paid an amount of Rs.5634734/- to the respondents and he surrendered his plot on dated 16.04.2015 Ex.C17 and the respondent officials refunded an amount of Rs.5050217/- on dated 12.06.2015. The balance amount of Rs.584517/- was not paid to the complainant. Hence the present complaint was filed by the complainant. In reply, the respondent officials submitted that they had also paid an amount of Rs.5050217/- to the complainant as per agreement of Estate Management Policy (EMP 2011).
8. After perusal of all the relevant document of the complainant as well as of OPs we come to the conclusion that in fact an amount of Rs.584517/- has been less paid by the respondents to the complainant. As per complainant, this amount was deducted by the respondent’s officials from the principal amount paid by the complainant to the respondents. On the other hand as per respondents the refund was made as per clause 6.2(i) of the Chapter 6 of Estate Management Policy 2011-15. In reply of para no.19, it has been again specifically mentioned that “Complainant had paid Rs.5050217/- as Principal and Rs.584517/- as interest accordingly the refund of principal amount after deducting the amount of Rs.7500/- of processing fee which was not refundable.” As per Ex.C17 the interest amount was Rs.138766/- and Rs.450750/-.
9. In this way, we came to the conclusion that the principal amount had already been refunded by the opposite parties to the complainant and an interest amounting to Rs.584517/- has not been refunded. This fact has also been mentioned in the letter Ex.C13 dated 08.08.2016. A perusal of this letter itself shows that first instalment of interest was amounting to Rs.133767/- and second was of Rs.450750/-. So the interest amount has not been paid by the respondent officials to the complainant. Now it is clear that the department had not deducted 10% from the principal amount. In fact this amount was towards the interest Head. The perusal of Estate Management Procedures (EMP) 2011 in chapter No.6 Surrender/Resumption of Plots/Sheds shows that as per clause 6.2(1) of this Chapter, it is submitted that: “Whereas an allottee surrenders the plot/shed at anytime within 2 years of allotment, the Corporation will refund the full principal amount paid by the allottee in such cases, without any interest within a period of 30 days of the receipt of surrender request”. In these circumstances it is clear that interest amount has not been paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of Estate Management Procedures(EMP 2011) and the principal amount has already been paid to the complainant. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly the present compliant stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.10.2018. ......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
