Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/445/2014

Vivek Saigal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

G.I. Sharma

03 May 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/445/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	07/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	03/05/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Vivek Saigal son of Shri Ashok Kumar Saigal, resident of House No. 1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh, presently at House No.141-A, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Ambala.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Chandigarh Housing Board, through its Secretary, Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

 

[2]  Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. G.I. Sharma, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.2		Sh. Aashish Gupta, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide Demand Draft dated 20.7.1996, in response to the LIG (Lower) Housing Scheme, 1996, for 216 flats in Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh, launched by the Opposite Party No.1. Besides, the Complainant had also submitted all requisite documents along with application form for the allotment of the flat. The Complainant did not hear anything about the fate of his application for the allotment of flat and had been waiting for response from the Opposite Party No.1, but unfortunately no intimation was ever received by him. It has been averred that the Complainant had misplaced the original papers and after tracing them he approached the Opposite Party No.1 through legal notice dated 9.3.2014. Failing to evoke any response, the Complainant sent a reminder/legal notice dated 9.5.2014 to the Opposite Party, but the same also failed to fructify. On representing the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant learnt that Opposite Party No.1 had made a reference to Opposite Party No.2 on 12.8.2014 for intimating if the earnest money of the Complainant was refunded, in response whereof Opposite Party No.2 intimated on 27.8.2014 that they are tracing their records and would revert back. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots held on 8.1.1997 and as per record available, the due amount of earnest money of Rs.40,000/- of the Complainant had duly been remitted to the designated bank i.e. Opposite Party No.2 for its further refund to the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.2 in its reply while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the refund record pertains to the year 1997, which is not available despite best efforts. Moreover, there are specific instructions governing the Opposite Party No.2 to weed out/ destroy the record pertaining to more than 10 years. It has been asserted that the Complainant never approached the answering Opposite Party for the refund of amount. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been controverted.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

8.     The case of the Complainant is that he had applied for allotment of flat in the LIG (Lower) Housing Scheme of the Chandigarh Housing Board in the year 1996 and had paid R.40,000/- to participate in the said Scheme. Admittedly, the draw-of-lots was held on 8.1.1997 and the Complainant was not successful in the draw-of-lots. The Complainant has alleged that he never got the refund of Rs.40,000/-, till date.

 

9.     The Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that they had remitted the entire amount of the unsuccessful applicants amounting to Rs.16,53,20,000/- (Annexure R-1) to Opposite Party No.2 on 31.3.1997 for carrying out necessary refund to the Applicants. The Opposite Party No.1 had also submitted a list of unsuccessful Applicants, along with their addresses, to the Opposite Party No.2. However, the Opposite Party No.1 has not produced any such record like the Cheque Nos./D.D Nos. by which the Opposite Party No.2 had refunded the deposited money of the unsuccessful Applicants.

 

10.     The Opposite Party No.2 has taken stand that there are specific instructions governing them to weed out/ destroy the record pertaining to more than 10 years old. The copy of the instructions have been placed on record. As per Opposite Party No.2 the Complainant never approached them for the refund of the amount with effect from 1996 and during the said period, they had destroyed the record, as per the instructions governing them for weeding out/ destroy the record. Normally, the records are to be destroyed/ weeded out under the signatures of the committee members who are responsible for weeding out/ destroying the same. However, the Opposite Party No.2 has not produced any such concrete documentary evidence that they had weeded out/ destroyed these records. Hence, we are not impressed with the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 has also not produced any record (Cheque Nos./DD Nos. etc.) to show that they had intimated the Opposite Party No.1 about refunding the money in respect of the unsuccessful Applicants.

 

11.     A conjoint reading of foregoings makes it crystal clear that the Opposite Parties acted in a highly irresponsible and negligent manner regarding preserving/ maintenance of the records in respect of the unsuccessful Applicants. Hence, it is held that the Opposite Parties failed to prove that they had actually refunded the amount of Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant who remained unsuccessful in the draw-of-lots.

 

12.     In view of the above discussion, the complainant has produced cogent evidence to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. We find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

[a]  Refund Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant, along with interest @6% p.a. with effect from 08.04.1997 (i.e. 03 months after the date of draw-of-lots), till realization;   

 

[b]  Pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of Para above from 08.04.1997, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation as per sub-para [c] above. 

 

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

 

Announced

03^rd May, 2016                           

 Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”