DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

  Case No. 558/2006

Rama Shanker Singh

1325, F-2 Block No.47, Kalyanvas,

Delhi-110091                                                      -Complainant

                                Vs

1. Ms. Anita Agarwal

    Chief Manager,

    Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corp. Ltd.

    3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,

    August Kranti Marg, New Delhi – 110049

2. Assistant Director (Janta Flats)

Delhi Development Authority,

INA, Vikas Sadan,

    New Delhi                                                     -Opposite Parties

                                    Date of Institution: 25.09.2006                                                   Date of Order:  11.07.2016

Coram:

N.K. Goel, President

Naina Bakshi, Member

S.S. Fonia, Member

O R D E R

        Grievances of the complainant in the present complaint appears to be with regard to payment of Rs. 23,148/- towards the interest which according to him had accrued on the principal amount of loan which was given to him as a loan by the OP-1 for making payment of a flat which was allotted to him by the OP-2/DDA.  According to the complainant, he wrote many letters and reminders to both the OPs but in vain.  According to him, the flat has already been cancelled by the DDA/OP-2 and the principal amount has been refunded to him but the interest of Rs. 23,148/- is not paid to him.  It is pleaded that since both the OPs in collusion with each other had been harassing the Complainant, his father died and his entire family is in depression for which appropriate compensation  be also awarded. Therefore, this complaint.

        As per the reply filed on behalf of OP-1, a loan of Rs. 2,30,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant to be paid to the DDA on behalf of the complainant which was paid to the DDA/OP-2 on 29.5.2002 by means of a banker’s cheque. However, vide letter dated 16.12.2002, the complainant informed OP-1 that the OP-2/DDA had cancelled the flat vide letter dated 6.11.2002 due to enhancement of the cost having own house of 150 sq. yds. in Delhi.  It is stated that  after adjustment of the amount received from the DDA into the loan account of the Complainant, a sum of Rs. 72,868/- as on 08.11.2006 is recoverable from the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant has suppressed the fact that the award has already been passed by the Arbitrator as per the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, Rules and Bye-law of OP-1.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

        In its reply, OP-2 has denied the averments made in the complaint.  It is, however, stated that after the submission of the original documents to OP-2 an amount of Rs. 2,33,598/- was refunded to OP-1 vide letter dated 17.5.06 by means of cheque and the complainant is not entitled to any interest.

        Complainant has filed rejoinders to the replies of the OPs. In rejoinder to reply of OP No.1 Complainant has increased the amount of interest to be paid to him as Rs.27791/-.

        In the rejoinder to reply of OP No.2 Complainant has inter-alia stated that an amount of about Rs.1,80,000/- on the amount of Rs.2,38,241/- @ 18% p.a. for 4 years be directed to be refunded by the OP No.2 to OP No.1.

        Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and has relied on documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/4.  On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Anita Agarwal, Senior Manager on behalf of OP-1 and of Sh. J.P. Agarwal, Director (H) II on behalf of OP-2 have been filed in evidence.

        The witness of OP-1 has relied the documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-15 and the OP-2’s witness has relied on the documents Ex. OP2/1 to OP2/10.

        Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

        We have heard the counsel of OP-1. However, none has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP-2 despite opportunities given in this behalf.  We have also carefully perused the documents.

        From the perusal of the prayers made in the prayer clause of the complainant itself it becomes abundantly clear that the matter in question requires summoning of records pertaining to payment and correspondence between the complainant and the OPs, hence, to give opportunities to the parties to adduce their respective evidence and to cross-examine each other’s witnesses.  Undeniably, an award in the matter has already been passed by the Arbitrator in favour of OP No.1 and against the Complainant. The effect of said award has to be decided. The Arbitrator must be a competent authority to deal with the matter in controversy.  Therefore, in our considered opinion, the matter in question cannot be decided in a summary manner.  Hence, we hold that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complaint is accordingly dismissed on this ground alone.

         Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                              (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                               (N. K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                         MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT

Announced on    11.07.2016

Case No. 243/09

10.06.2016

Present –   None 

            Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                              (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                               (N. K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                         MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT