Delhi

North East

CC/262/2015

Anil Kr. Dhyani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.  262/15

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Anil Kumar Dhyani R/o:- Flat no. L-101, Grand Ajnara Sector-74, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar U.P.	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	The Manager Central Bank of India Shahdara Branch Delhi-110032   The Manager Central Bank of India Vikas Sadan Branch INA, New Delhi-110003	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                DATE OF DECISION     :

28.07.2015 09.06.2020 09.06.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts recapitulated for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a DDA (Delhi Development Authority) LIG (Low Income Group) flat from its original allottee one Ram Narain Singh S/o Kartar Singh acting as Power of Attorney holder on his behalf with respect to Flat no. 14 ground floor  Pocket-B, Nand Nagri Delhi-110093 (hereinafter referred as to the said flat) and was paying installments to DDA for the said flat. However, due to irregular payment of installment interest was levied by DDA. For the same, the complainant had availed of ‘Amnesty Scheme’ of DDA under which he had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in OP1 bank on 12.02.1999 vide challan  no. 008395C (challan) towards payment of interest to be credited in the account of DDA maintained with OP2 bank, both being Central Bank of India (CBI) i.e. OPs. On 04.06.2014, when the complainant applied to DDA for getting the said flat converted from lease hold to free hold, he came to know that credit for all the challans paid by him had been updated in computerized records of DDA except for the Challan in question i.e. challan no. 008395C because the same was not remitted by OP1 in account of DDA maintained at OP2. The complainant contacted OP1 on 05.07.2014 and after several visits was informed by OP1 vide letter dated 14.07.2014 that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- received on 12.02.1999 alongwith ‘Manifold’ had been remitted to OP2 but in the said letter OP1 did not inform the complainant about the date on which the said amount was sent to OP2. Due to non remittance of the said sum the complainant was deprived of availing of benefit of Amnesty Scheme and instead an additional amount of Rs. 45,500/- had to be paid by complainant to DDA for getting the said flat on free hold vide challan no. 502571 dated 16.07.2014 paid vide DD no. 847179 dated 16.07.2014 drawn on Syndicate Bank. The complainant vide RTI application dated 25.10.2014 to OPs asked for information about when the challan in question was sent by OP1 to OP2 for which OPs vide reply dated 19.11.2014 informed the complainant that the OP1 had received the said challan on 12.02.1999 of Rs. 20,000/- which was duly sent to OP2 and that manual records more than ten years old were not available. Complainant also sought information through RTI from DDA on 17.11.2014 with regard to the said challan and was informed vide respond dated 23.12.2014 from DDA that the challan in question deposited with OP1 had not been verified by its office of A.O. (computer) housing thereby implying that the amount of  Rs. 20,000/- had not been transferred by OP1 to OP2 and DDA asked complainant to contact branch manager of OP1 and obtained Bank Certificate of Rs. 20,000/- and send the same to A.O. (H) with indemnity bond for consideration of his case. The complainant against sought information from OP1 in this regard but OP1 vide reply dated 29.01.2015 informed the complainant that it had sent the said challan to OP2 and attached with the said reply copy of its Cash Scroll Book and Amnesty list register for information / record highlighting the challan in question but without the date of its dispatch. The complainant also lodged a complaint with Banking Ombudsman on 04.03.2015 in this regard but no response came forth. Therefore complainant alleging carelessness and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in performance of its duty, filed the present complaint praying for issuance of direction against OPs to refund Rs. 45,500/- which was additionally deposited by the complainant with DDA due to non remittance of challan of Rs. 20,000/- by OPs in DDA’s account for the said flat and also for non intimation of date of its dispatch to DDA alongwith compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for delay of two months in getting the said flat free hold to lease hold and for monetary loss and mental harassment.
2. Complainant has attached copy of challan no. 008395C in favour of DDA under Amnesty Scheme for Rs. 20,000/-under stamp and seal of OP1 dated 12.02.1999 paid by complainant as POA holder of Ram Narain Singh, copy of DDA diary highlighting the entry dated 28.07.2014 the challan in question “not traceable in the cash book” and “not found in computer”. The said register further refers to the complainant having submitted challan of Rs. 45,500/- on 17.07.2014 vide challan no. 502571 and the same sent for verification, copy of letter dated 14.07.2014 by OPs to DDA confirming to deposit of the challan on 12.02.1999 under code 141 and sending the same alongwith other manifolds to OP2, copy of challan no 502571 dated 17.07.2014 paid by complainant  to DDA to the tune of Rs. 45,500/- through DD for the said flat on behalf of Ram Narain Singh alongwith the copy of DD, copy of RTI reply dated 23.12.2014 from DDA to complainant  about non verification / non transfer the challan in question copy of RTI reply dated 19.11.2014 from OPs to complainant informing about dispatch of the challan in question to OP2, copy of reply dated 19.01.2015 by OP to complainant attaching copy of cash scroll book and amnesty scheme register and copy of complaint dated 04.03.2015 by complainant to office of Banking Ombudsman. The complainant filed additional documents of chain of ownership of the said flat inter alia the conveyance deed dated 02.09.2014 executed by DDA in favour of Ram Narain Singh as allottee of the said flat and complainant being the purchaser thereof.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 25.08.2015. OPs entered appearance and filed a composite written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection of complaint being hopelessly time bared by limitation as the deposit in question pertains to the year 1999 and the complaint has been filed in 2015 i.e. after more than 15 years. On merits, the OPs, while admitting the factum of complainant having deposited Rs. 20,000/- with OP1 on 12.02.1999 as challan no. 008395C, resisted the complaint on grounds that the said challan alongwith other deposits were sent to its OP2 branch and was remitted in account no. 2 of DDA vide advice no. 20853 dated 16.02.1999 and this fact was even admitted by DDA vide letter dated 17.06.2015 in which DDA admitted that a total sum of Rs. 2,17,168/- was remitted by OPs on 16.02.1999 but OPs alleged that DDA made false statement of non having received the challan in question from it whereas there were 34 other challans sent alongwith the challan in question to DDA and no other depositor made any complaint except the complainant which clearly shows that it was due to negligence of DDA that the amount in question could not be uploaded in its records and only to deny its responsibility, DDA was trying to blame the OPs for non receipt of challan no. 008395C. OPs further urged that in case the DDA had not received the challan in question, it could have asked the OPs to submit the same for crediting it in its relevant account but did not do so nor explained under which head the DDA had kept the said account. Lastly, OPs maintain that the amount in question of Rs. 20,000/- was transferred in DDA account on 16.02.1999 and urged that there was non-negligence on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OPs have attached copy of letter dated 17.06.2014 by DDA office of senior account CASG (housing) addressed to OP2 by DDA’s Senior AO (cash) H.
4. Rejoinder in rebuttal to defence taken by OPs was filed by the complainant in which the complainant submitted that there was a contradiction between the date of deposit of challan between the statements of OPs and that of Banking Ombudsman in as much as the latter informed the complainant that OP1 had sent 15 challans including the challan in question to OP2 on 12.09.1999 whereas as per OPs, the challan in question was sent to OP2 on 16.02.1999. Complainant urged that OPs have admitted to have lost the challan in question during transit (?) and therefore was deficient in service for which complainant was made to suffer. Complainant further averred that the DDA had admitted in its letter dated 17.06.2015 that amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in its account held with OP2 on 16.02.1999 but could not be uploaded in ‘Awas’ Records due to non receipt of challan in question from OP1 clearly implying that the said challan was not sent by OP1 to OP2 and OPs have been trying to shift the blame on DDA. Complainant further submitted that OPs did not provide him the exact date of dispatch of challan despite several requests and stated that due non availability of challan in DDA’s record, the benefits of ‘Amnesty Scheme’ of DDA could not be extended to him and he was therefore compelled to pay additional sum of Rs. 45,500/- to DDA despite deposit of Rs. 20,000/- already made by him earlier for which the OPs wholly responsible. Lastly, complainant urged that despite his repeated RTI queries, he never got correct information from OPs but only from the Banking Ombudsman and that too with contradiction in dates and alleged that OPs have made an unsuccessful attempt to evade its own wrong of not sending the concern challan to DDA which was solely its responsibility and therefore prayed for the relief claimed. Complainant has attached copy of order of Banking Ombudsman.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant as well as OPs and OPs exhibited the copy of letter dated 17.06.2015 as Exht. R1.
6. Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion / reiteration of their respective grievance / defence.
7.  The complainant vide application dated 25.04.2017 apprised this forum that on its application / representation to Assistant Director DDA (Land & Building), DDA has refunded the amount of  Rs. 45,466/- through RTGS in complainant’s account on 11.04.2017 against the amount of Rs. 45,500/- paid by complainant to DDA vide challan no. 502571 and therefore, the complainant has amended the prayer clause and limiting the same only to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation inclusive of interest w.e.f. 17.07.2014 on Rs. 45,500/- paid by him to DDA and also for mental and physical harassment.
8. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and have keenly perused the documentary documents placed on record. In so far as the preliminary objection of limitation taken by OPs is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the challan in question was deposited in 1999 but records reveal that the complainant acquired information of non receipt of the said challan by DDA only in June 2014 when he approached DDA for getting the flat in question converting from lease hold to free hold and to get the conveyance deed registered qua the said flat and therefore the knowledge of non credit of the said challan was acquired by the complainant only in June 2014 ad complaint having been filed in August 2015 is therefore well within limitation from the date of knowledge of cause of action. On merits, it is an admitted fact that the challan no. 008395C of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by complainant with OP1 on 12.02.1999 for the DDA flat in question (in capacity of complainant been power of attorney holder of its original allottee and purchaser of the said flat from the said allottee) to be deposited with OP2 in DDA account held with OP2. The dispute arose in 2014 when complainant went to DDA to get the flat transfers from lease hold to free hold and execution of conveyance deed in his name but was informed that the challan in question was never deposited in DDA’s account held with OP2. Therefore, the complainant had to pay additional sum of Rs. 45,500/- for getting the flat freehold despite already having paid Rs. 20,000/- for the same 15 years back and could not avail of “Amnesty Scheme” of DDA. DDA vide letter dated 17.06.2015 to OP2 denied having received the challan in question from OP1 for which reason the amount was not uploaded in its system. The matter was reserved for order on 03.10.2016 by the erstwhile bench but was not passed and it was relisted before the present bench on 17.05.2018. The complainant in the earlier period had apprised this Forum in April 2017 that the additional amount of Rs. 45,500/- was remitted back by DDA in complainant’s account in April 2017 and therefore the prayer is for limited relief of compensation for deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The letter dated 17.06.2015 is of utmost importance to be read in consonance with annexure-7 filed with the complaint in which the copy of cash scroll register and Amnesty Scheme list of OPs has been attached. In the said documents, the figure of Rs. 2,17,168/- was credited in account no. 2 of DDA held with OP2 on 16.02.1999 as per DDA’s admission which figure included Rs. 20,000/- vide advice no. 20853 dated 16.02.1999 which was the challan amount of the complainant. This challan was the 12^th challan out of the 19  challan in the cash scroll books of OPs and was also part of DDA Amnesty Scheme Register of several such other challans totaling Rs. 2,17,168/-.The DDA has acknowledged receipt of the said amount in its account no. 2 on 16.02.1999 which obviously included the amount of R.s 20,000/- sent via challan no. 008395C pertaining to the complainant and therefore its own stand is contradictory taken in letter dated 17.06.2015 to OPs where on one hand, it acknowledges credit of amount of Rs. 2,17,168/-  in its account held with OP2 including              Rs. 20,000/- but on the other hand denies having received the challan in question fromOP1 which is perverse to its own stand of receipt of the said amount. Therefore, it is evident from the contradiction that the DDA realized its system error in failure to upload the said challan, amount of which is reflected and also matches with the cash scroll book and amnesty register alongwith its admission vide letter dated 17.06.2015 to OPs of receipt of  Rs. 2,17,168/- including Rs. 20,000/- paid vide challan no. 008395C by the complainant. Therefore the DDA had remitted back a sum of Rs. 45,466/- in April 2017 after marginal deduction of Rs. 44 from the original challan amount of Rs. 45,500/- paid by complainant to OPs in July 2014. The complainant did not make DDA party to the present complaint despite it being a necessary party as being integral to the transaction being tri-partite between complainant, OP and DDA and therefore the complaint suffers from non-joinder of parties
9. Compensation is for vindicating the strength of law and acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil and aims at improving work culture and changing the outlook of officer / public servant and discourages arrogation of power in arbitrary manner. Hon'ble National Commission in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Yogesh Chandragupta in RP No. 128/2000 decided on 06.12.2004 held that where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the commission / Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic Vs Addl. Collector of Customs (2006) 3 SCC 721 held that deficiency in service is must to award compensation and such deficiency must manifest itself for entitling complainant to compensation.  
10.  In the present case however, after due appreciation of the evidence on record we do not find any element of deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the OPs with respect to remittance the challan in question to DDA and the factum of refund of the additional amount by DDA is manifest of its own damage control exercise but DDA was never made a party to the present complaint that any contrary facts could be brought forth in this regard in its defence. We therefore have no hesitation in disallowing the prayer for compensation made by the complainant as vexatious and frivolous and dismiss the same as devoid of merits as also the complaint being defective. No order as to cost.
11. Let the copy of this order be sent to all parties free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
12.   File be consigned to record room.
13.   Announced on 09.06.2020 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member