Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/384/2018

Beant Singh Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Jasuja Adv.

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	384 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	10.07.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	11.03.2019

 

 

 

 

 

Beant Singh Arora son of Late Sh.Raghubir Singh, R/o House No.5099/3, Category-III, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.      

 

             …………….Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-d, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

 

2]  ICICI Bank, SCO No.6, Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager.

 

3]  Canara Bank, SCO No.117-119, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                    MR.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

           

 

For Complainant   :     Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate

 

For OP(s)         :     Sh.Rajiv Sharma, Adv. for OP No.1

                        Sh.Jatin Khullar, Adv. for OP No.2.

                        Opposite Party NO.3 exparte.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                    The case of the complainant is that he was allotted a Flat No.5099, 3^rd Floor, Category-III, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh vide registration No.3882 and at that time, the consideration of said flat was Rs.3 lacs and the complainant was supposed to pay Rs.2891/- as monthly installments.  The Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 27.7.1994 enhanced the cost of flat from Rs.3 lacs to Rs.3.71 lac and as such enhanced the rate of monthly installment from Rs.2891/- to Rs.4402/-.  The said action of Opposite Party NO.1 was challenged by the complainant and other allottees in the High Court and the matter is still pending.  It is stated that Opposite Party No.1 had given option to the allottees to either pay the lump sum amount as enhanced or to pay monthly installment of Rs.4402/- w.e.f. 10.8.1994.  However, the complainant started paying monthly installment of Rs.2891/- to Opposite Party No.1 (Ann.C-1).  The complainant took the possession of the said flat on 29.7.1994 and since then he is living there.  It is stated that although the complainant was paying the installments regularly, yet due to enhancement of amount, there was some arrears pending and in order to clear the same, the complainant got prepared a pay order No.006569, dated 12.6.2001 of Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of Opposite Party No.1 from his saving bank account with Opposite Party No.2/ICICI Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula (Ann.C-2).  Thereafter, the said draft was submitted in the account of Opposite Party No.1 with Opposite Party NO.3/Canara Bank against receipt dated 13.6.2001 (Ann.C-3).  It is submitted that in the year 2007, Opposite Party NO.1 computerised its record and informed the complainant vide letter dated 12.2.2007 to compare/check his accounts with accounts of Opposite Party No.1 and in case of any discrepancy get the same corrected  (Ann.C-4). As such, the complainant, after comparison, submitted details of the amount paid by him and specifically pointed out that the entry of Rs.1.5 lacs deposited by him at Sr.No.45 is missing (Ann.C-5). However, the Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 18.5.2009 raised demand of Rs.3,24,313/- in which Rs.1,09,433/- was demanded on account of penalty/interest   (Ann.C-7).

 

         It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 despite letter dated 4.4.2016 did not adjust the amount of Rs.1,50,00/- deposited by the complainant in its account with Canara Bank through pay order against receipt (Ann.C-12).  It is also submitted that when the complainant approached Opposite Party NO.3 to enquire about the pay order/missing entry of Rs.1.5 lacs, they replied vide letter dated 29.4.2016 that they have destroyed all the record after 10 years of transaction (Ann.C-14).  After much persuasion, the Manager of ICICI Bank informed the complainant that when the pay order is not cleared for 10 years, the amount of the same is deposited with Reserve Bank of India, as per instructions.  It is averred that the Opposite Party No1. Vide letter dated 24.1.2017 informed the complainant that as per report of its Accounts Section, the pay order of Rs.1.50 lacs has not been encahsed and credited in the account of flat of the complainant and it has no objection if the RBI refunds the said amount (Ann.C-20).  Thereafter, the complainant arranged all the required documents and submitted the same to Opposite Party No.2 for reimbursement of Rs.1.50 lacs from RBI vide letter dated 3.3.2018.  

 

         It is submitted that inspite of overwhelming efforts of the complainant regarding the entry of payment of Rs.1.5 lacs through pay order by him in respect of his flat, the Opposite Party No.1 did not give any concrete information regarding the receipt of the said amount till the issuance of letter dated 24.1.2017 and when Opposite Party No.1 clarified about non-receipt of the said amount, it did not make any effort to make  enquiry from its own bank/OP No.3, where the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs was deposited by the complainant against duly issued receipt as the Opposite Party No.3 being the bank of Opposite Party No.1.  It is also submitted that Opposite Party No.1 was duty bound to make the said enquiry and Opposite Party NO.3 was also bound to provide the said information.  Even the Opposite Party No.2 bank of complainant was also supposed to give information to the complainant if the amount of the pay order was not encashed by Opposite Party No.1 and more especially when Opposite Party No.2 had sent the said amount to RBI, if it has so happened.  It is further submitted that the said inactions on the part of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by the complainant has been first time submitted on 18.10.2016 and as per the statement of account pertaining to the flat of the complainant, no such payment amount has been received till date in the office of Opposite Party No.1 either due to the fault of the complainant or of the Bank.  It is admitted that the demand of Rs.3,24,313/- was raised  vide letter dated 18.5.2009 as per the terms & conditions of the allotment letter as there was default in payment of installments.  It is stated that Opposite Party No.1 vide letter No.5534/36 has written to Canara Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh and ICICI Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula, to inform as to whether Rs.1.50 lacs pay order has been credited in the account of CHB at any time.  It is also stated that the complainant was well informed that Rs.1,50,000/- was never received and further that Opposite Party No.1 has issued letter dated 9.8.2016 to Canara Bank as well as ICICI Bank, but no reply has been received. It is submitted that since no payment has been received in the office of Opposite Party NO.1, so it is entitled to recover the same along with interest and penalty.  Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2/ICICI Bank has also filed reply and stated that the complainant got prepared banker’s Cheque No.006569, dated 12.6.2001 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- from it in the name of Opposite Party No.1 from his saving bank account and as such, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant and banker’s cheque, so prepared was handed over to the complainant.  It is stated that Opposite Party NO.2 has no concern with the handing over of the banker’s cheque to Opposite Party No.3, as the same was the responsibility of the complainant how to deal with it, after getting the banker’s cheque prepared.  It is also stated that the complainant had closed his account on 14.12.2011 with Opposite Party NO.2. It is submitted that the complainant had submitted the required documents in June, 2018, but the said banker’s cheque was not traceable being the old dated record and the record of more than 10 years has already been destroyed.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.3/Canara Bank did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.9.2018.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and also carefully examined the entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The complainant with an intention to pay the amount to the Chandigarh Housing Board, as due for allotment of dwelling unit No.5099/3 of Category-III in Mani Majra, Chandigarh, prepared a bank draft No.006569, dated 12/06/2001 of ICICI Bank, Branch PANCHKULA (Annexure C-2) for  ₹1,50,000/- from his account and deposited the said draft in Canara Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh on 13/06/2001 (Annexure C-3) for credit into the Current Account No.4217 of the Chandigarh Housing Board.

 

6]       The Chandigarh Housing Board/Opposite Party No. 1, herein, however in his reply, denied the receipt of amount of ₹1,50,000/- from the complainant. The Chandigarh Housing Board in its reply in Para-15 has stated that they have written to the Canara Bank vide letter dated 09/08/2016, but the Canara bank did not give any reply to that. However, Canara Bank, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 29/04/2016 addressed to the complainant had informed that all record pertaining to the period dated 30th of June 2001 has been weeded out and no details with reference to remittance of ₹1,50,000/- for credit to the account of Chandigarh Housing Board is available with them. The Canara bank has not denied the voucher dated 13/06/2001 Annexure C-3 of their own. The inference as such can be drawn that the Canara Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh received the draft on 30/06/2001 vide C.A No.4217 for credit into the account of Chandigarh Housing Board.

 

7]       After perusal of receipt dated 13/06/2001 Annexure C-3, it is established beyond all doubts that the Canara Bank, Sector 17-C Branch Chandigarh has received the bank draft No.006569, dated 12/06/2001 from the complainant for further payment to Chandigarh Housing Board, but negligently failed to deposit the amount in the account of the Chandigarh Housing Board which is maintained in the Canara Bank. There is definitely a gross negligence on the part of Canara Bank in the discharge of its duties cannot be ignored.

 

8]       After protracted correspondence, Chandigarh Housing Board vide its letter dated 24th January, 2017 finally denied encashment of pay order of ICICI bank amounting to ₹1,50,000/- and as such the present complaint filed by the complainant in July, 2018 is within limitation. The Canara Bank was issued notice by this forum in the present complaint, but they preferred to keep mum perhaps they have no answer to the contentions as alleged in the complaint. The Canara Bank/Opposite Party No.3 suffers from deficiency in service on their part and as such liable to compensate the complainant for the loss incurred by him.

 

9]       The Canara Bank deserves severe deterrent reprimand but keeping into its stature being a public institution, a lenient view is being taken by this forum by allowing the present complaint with following directions:-

 

(a)    The Opposite Party No.3/Canara bank shall pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant on account of mental harassment and agony.

(b)    The ICICI Bank, Sector 11 PANCHKULA/Opposite Party No.2 shall retrieve the amount of ₹1,50,000/- which is reported to be in RBI Delhi and pay the same to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 12/06/2001 till payment to the complainant.

 

The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 shall comply with this order within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

1.  

 

The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties as per rules.

Announced

11^th March, 2019                                                  Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER