Haryana

Panchkula

CC/583/2019

MAJOR AJAY KUNDU. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PANCHKULA,DC OFFICE. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	583 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	24.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	26.07.2022

 

 Major Ajay Kundu s/o Sh. Wazir Singh Kundu, R/o c/o Dr. Reetu    Kundu,  H.No.3338/2, Sector-32 D, Chandigarh. 

 

                                                                ….Complainant.

 

Versus

1.     Deputy Commissioner Panchkula, DC Office, Sector-1, Panchkula,      Haryana.

2.     SDM Kalka, SDM Office, Kalka Panchkula.

3.     Director General, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts   Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

4.     Tehsildar  and Executive Magistrate, Tehsil Kalka, Panchkula.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OPs No.1 to 3 already ex-parte vide order dated                              18.12.2019.

                        None for OP no.4.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant submitted the fee Rs.25,003/- for, registration of the property in DLF Valley, with the OP No.3 on 11.02.2019 in the Haryana Treasury. It is averred that the amount deposited by him on 11.02.2019 with the OP No.4 was also confirmed by the complainant’s bank and assured by the bank that the payment request to payee Cyber Treasury Directorate of Treasury from his account is successful. The complainant went to the office of OP No.4 to get the registration of property in the name of complainant but had shocked that the amount deposited by him on 11.02.2019 was not shown credited into the account of OP no.4 whereas the complainant had a receipt from the Treasury Office. After conversation between the complainant and OP No.4, he again on 15.03.2019 deposited Rs.25,003/-(GRN No. 004514553) in the account of OP No.4. The registration of the property was done on the amount deposited by the complainant on 15.03.2019. The complainant wrote letters 01.04.2019 & 28.05.2019 to the OP No.4 with copy to OP No.1 & OP No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.25,003/- which was deposited on 12.02.2019 (GRN No.44147777). The complainant approached the Ops again and again and had requested them to refund the amount but no avail. Due to the acts and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 to 3 through registered post on 06.11.2019 which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 to 3; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.1 to 3, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 18.12.2019.

                Upon notice, the OP No.4 appeared through Authorised representative and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; estoppels; no cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder no locus standi; not come with clean hands and suppressed true material facts.  On merits, it is stated that as per Registration Act rules and regulations maintained by the State of Haryana, there is no clause for refund of the registration charges deposited by any person with the account of Govt. of Haryana. However, after the discussion of the matter between the higher authorities, the department has agreed to release the amount to the complainant within a short period after taking due procedure.  It is also averred that OP No.4 informed, the complainant, their inability to refund any amount in the absence of any clause in the Registration Act about the refund of registration charges when the applicant himself deposited the amount at his own and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. The evidence of OP No.4 is closed by the order of the Commission.

4.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During the arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint, has alleged lapses and deficiencies on the part of the Ops while not refunding the amount of Rs.25,003/-, which was deposited with than twice qua the registration of a property in DLF Valley. It is stated that the alleged sum of Rs.25,003/-, which was  paid twice to OPs firstly on 12.02.2019 vide GRN No.44147777 (Annexure C-4) and secondly on 15.03.2019 vide GRN No.0045142553 (Annexure C-6), has already been refunded to him during the pendency of the complaint. The complainant, concluding the arguments, has claimed the compensation of account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigations charges.

6.             The OPs No.1 to 3 has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notices and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.12.2019 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             Evidently, a sum of Rs.25,003/- was paid by the complainant vide GRN No.44147777 dated 12.02.2019(Annexure C-4) to OP No.4 qua the registration fee. It is further evident that payment of Rs.25,003/- from the bank account no.05860100018446 of the complainant in bank of Baroda was successfully credited into account no.HRYGACPN2906553 of OP No.3. However, as per averments made by the OP no.4 in para no.4 of its reply on merits, no such amount of Rs.25,003/- was deposited  by the complainant. It seems that there was some technical defect in the system and consequently, the complainant was forced to deposit the sum of Rs.25,003/- again on 15.03.2019 vide GRN No.0045142553 as is evident from Annexure C-6 for the registration of his property in DLF Valley. From the documents available on file, it is evident that the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.25,003/- twice firstly on 12.02.2019 and thereafter, on 15.03.2019 for the registration of property in DLF. Needless to mention here that it is not permissible for OPs No.3 and 4 to obtain the registration charges twice for the registration of a property. For the technical fault, if any, in the system of OPs the consumer cannot be penalized. Further, the lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP no.4 is evident from the fact that he failed to initiate the refund process even after the receipt of representation from the complainant as well as the directions from the OP No.1(Annexure C-2 & C-3). Admittedly, the claimed amount of Rs. 25,003/- has been refunded to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint. However, it is relevant to mention here that the OP No.4 took a very long period in refunding the said amount as the complaint was instituted before the Commission on 24.10.2019. Moreover, the contentions of the complainant regarding the lapses and deficiencies on the part of the Ops are uncontroverted and unrebutted. The OP No.4 has failed to adduce its evidence in support its contention made in the written statement. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

8.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No.4 while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief. The present complaint is dismissed qua OPs No.1 to 3.

 9.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.4:-

1. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

 

10.            The OP No.4 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP No.4. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 26.07.2022

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                Member                  Member                                President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                Satpal

                                             President