CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.253/2009
Mrs. Mamta
W/o Sh. Harish Kumar
R/o D-16/323, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi-110085 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
though its Principal Officer
Housing Department, D Block,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
2. Axis Bank
through its Assistant Vice President
Retail Asset Centre,
4/6 B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002
3. Axis Bank
through its Manager
Sector-9, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 23.03.09 Date of Order : 26.11.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that in pursuance of launching of scheme “ DDA Housing Scheme 08” by OP No.1 the OP No.2 & 3 in association with OP No.1 offered finance facility which she had availed. The OP No.3 took a sum of Rs.5678/- on 10.09.08 towards three months interest for extending a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as application money to OP No.1. On 16.12.2008 OP No.1 took out the draw of lots without ascertaining the genuineness of application thereby causing loss of opportunity to succeed her. OP No.1 deliberately and intentionally did not direct OP No.2 &3 to scrutinize each and every application thereby causing wrongful gains to OPs and wrongful loss to her. On 23.01.09 after draw of lots, OP No.1 started sending letters to her seeking “verification of genuineness for refund of registration money.” Vide letter dated 09.02.2009 she supplied all the documents as desired by OP No.1 and made the request to furnish the information as to who applied in her spouse’s name but OP No.1 never responded to her request. She was shocked to receive a letter dated 04.03.2009 issued by OP No.3 wherein she was requested to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest amounting to Rs.60/- per day from 17.12.2008. The conduct of the OPs tantamounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and she is thoroughly harassed and deeply agonized. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the parts of OPs, the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OPs to refund Rs.5678/- paid by Complainant on 10.09.08 as the draw of lots was unfair.
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.5500/- towards the cost borne by Complainant in completing formalities as desired by OP No.1 vide its letter dated 23.01.2009.
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the mental agony caused by the threatening letter dated 04.03.2009 issued by OP No.2.
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- towards causing loss of opportunity of having home through fair draw of lots.
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,000/- towards lawyer’s professional fee and adequate costs may also be granted.
OP No.1 in the written statement has stated that OP No.1 floated a scheme for sale of ready built flats under the Scheme known as DDA housing Scheme, 2008. After receipt of the application from the banks alongwith soft copy of the applicant data, the same were fed in the system and the hard copies were printed for checking of application number, category code and option of localities. This was done by about 100 employees of DDA of various sections/departments. After holding the draw on 16.12.2008, necessary instructions were issued on 19.12.2008 to both the Directors (Housing) to ensure that the demand-cum- allotment letters may be got generated on priority and issued after proper scrutiny particularly in the case of doubtful and reserved categories in the light of terms and conditions of the brochure. OP No.1 has stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 Hence, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In their joint written statement OP No.2 & 3 have not denied regarding disbursement of Rs.1,50,000/- with Rs.5678/- as interest thereon to the Complainant. They have contended that the Complainant approached to them and requested and applied for the finance facility. They had no role in scrutinizing the genuineness of the applications received by OP No.1. Their role is only confined to extending finance facility to those applicants that they ascertain to have requisite credit worthiness. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The Complainant had not made the payment of outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the interest thereupon. OP No.2 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with an exemplary costs.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1. It is stated as under:-
“….Respondent’s elaborate system confirms that genuineness of applications was not established before the draw thereby causing wrongful loss to all genuine applicants. Complainant being one of the major sufferers as she was not only subjected to a shady scheme but also harassed with illegal demands of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith heavy daily penalties. The process explained must be demonstrated at the stage of final arguments enabling the Complainant to establish the deficiencies and unfairness. Respondent has mentioned some clause 24 (H) Complainant cannot figure out of which Act.
The submission made by the respondent at the outset of their reply is vehemently opposed and the Complainant states that the present complaint is a curtain raiser to the misdeeds of the respondents. The Complainant has a good case in her favour and deposit Rs.5678/- alongwith form price of Rs.100 ought to be returned with interest and adequate costs and compensation.”
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. S. K. Jain, Director (H) has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and OP No.1. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the OPs and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Parties have failed to mark exhibit nos. as per the exhibit nos. given to them in their respective affidavits.
It is evident that the Complainant had applied for ready for occupation flat with the OP No.1 in the housing scheme, 2008. She had applied for the loan from OP No.2 and 3 in respect of the application and the amount to be deposited was Rs.1,50,000/- with the OP No.1. The Complainant has filed a copy of DDA Hosing Booking Amount Finance Scheme-2008 (for the purpose of identification we mark document as Annexure-A). OP No.1 vide letter dated 23.01.2009 informed the Complainant regarding verification of genuineness for refund of registration money (for the purpose of identification we mark document as Annexure-B). OP No.2 vide letter dated 04.03.2009 informed the Complainant regarding booking amount financed under DDA Booking Finance Scheme, 2008 (for the purpose of identification we mark document as Annexure-C) and sought certain clarification from the Complainant.
In view of the above, it appears that the Complainant had applied for a flat with OP No.1 and she had applied for a loan facility from OP No.2 & 3. The OP No.3 took a sum of Rs.5678/- towards three month’s interest for granting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as application money to OP No.1. After a draw of lot held by the OP No.1 she did not become successful for allotment of a flat under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008. The OP No.1 informed the Complainant that if she failed to attend the office for verification of genuineness within the stipulated period the money will be forfeited without any further opportunity. The Complainant got financed loan from OP No.2 & 3 for booking a flat. She had taken a loan from the OP No.2 & 3 as the OP No.2 & 3 deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on behalf of the Complainant and OP No.2 & 3 vide letter dated 04.03.2009 made it clear that the interest for a period of three months from the date of closure of the account will be paid by the Complainant. Hence, the said amount of Rs.5678/- was charged by OP No.2 & 3 from the Complainant towards interest which cannot be refunded to her. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complaint is without merit. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
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.
Announced on 26.11.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
