Haryana

StateCommission

A/694/2016

HARYNA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORP.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DYNAMIC TRANSMISSION - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY KAUSHIK

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      694 of 2016

Date of Institution:      27.07.2016

Date of Decision :       03.03.2017

1.     Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula having its office at C-13 & C-14, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Deputy General Manager.

2.     Estate Officer-cum-Branch Manager, Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, IMT, Rohtak.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

1.      Dynamic Transmission Limited, 151, Hisar Road, Rohtak through its Managing Director, Anshul Kumar.

2.      Anshul Kumar s/o Sh. Jagbir Singh Narwal, Advocate, Resident of Kishan Kuteer, Sonipat Road, Rohtak.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                               

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate and Shri Gurvir Narwal, Advocate for respondents. 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short ‘HSIIDC’), is in appeal against the order dated March 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby it directed the HSIIDC to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from August 10^th, 2011 to October 30^th, 2013 on the amount of Rs.18,22,500/- and Rs.3,000/- litigation expenses to the complainants.

2.                  Anshul Kumar (complainant No.2) - Managing Director, Dynamic Transmission Limited-complainant No.1, filed an application (Exhibit C-6) to the HSIIDC for allotment of a plot in Industrial Estate at IMT, Rohtak, on August 10^th,  2011. He paid Rs.18,22,500/- to the HSIIDC as earnest money. The plot was to be allotted on the basis of interview. Till January, 2013, the HSIIDC did not take any action on the application of complainants. The complainants sought refund of the amount alongwith interest, vide application dated January 17^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-8). The HSIIDC paid Rs.18,22,500/- to the complainants on October 30^th, 2013 but without interest. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite parties- HSIIDC contested the complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the complainants had sought refund of Rs.18,22,500/- on January 17^th, 2013 and the amount was paid vide cheque dated October 30^th, 2013. As per condition No.(vii) of Clause 3.7 of the Estate Management Procedures (EMP) 2011, the complainants were not entitled to interest because the amount was paid within 60 days from the date of application whereby refund of the amount was sought. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the HSIIDC as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Learned counsel for the HSIIDC has fairly conceded at bar that on the application filed by the complainants, no action was taken by the HSIIDC till January 17^th, 2013.

6.                Indisputably, the complainants applied for allotment of plot on August 10^th, 2011 and till January 17^th, 2013, the HSIIDC did not take any action on that application. This being so, the complainants had no other option but to seek refund of the amount from the HSIIDC. The amount of Rs.18,22,500/- has been utilized by the HSIIDC for a period more than two years.  So, the HSIIDC is liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.18,22,500/- to the complainants.  

7.                In view of the above, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 03.03.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL