Haryana

Kurukshetra

94/2016

Pushpa Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Estate Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Kumar

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.94 of 2016.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.04.2016.

                                                     Date of decision: 28.03.2019.

 

Pushpa Rani aged about 60 years wife of Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o H.No. 1843, 1^st Floor Type-I, Sector-8, Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Estate Manager, Housing Board Haryana, Shopping Complex Sec-4, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.
2. Housing Board Haryana, Shopping Complex Sec-4, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra through its Estate Manager.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. S.K. Goel, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. H.L. Jangra, Advocate for the opposite parties.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Pushpa Rani against the Estate Manager, Housing Board Haryana and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that a residential flat No.1843 1^st floor having 97.40 sq. yard covered area had been allotted by the ops to one Shri Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Harnek Singh, resident of house No.2833, Sector-7, Mohali for total sale consideration of Rs.13,96,500/- vide allotment letter No.1418 dated 9.7.2009. The said flat was transferred by the ops in favour of complainant vide letter No.EM/HBH/KKR/2008/388 dated 2.2.2010 on payment of transfer fee and fulfillment of all the legal formalities prescribed by the ops. It is further averred that out of the total sale consideration, a sum of Rs.5,58,600/- had been deposited with the ops before offer of possession and the remaining amount of Rs.8,37,900/- was payable in 120 monthly installments alongwith interest @8.75% per annum. The ops had also calculated a total amount of Rs.3360/- towards insurance charges payable in 120 equal monthly installments of Rs.28/-. It is further averred that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.10,600/- by way of monthly installment instead of Rs.10,529/- and as such a sum of Rs.71/- has been deposited in excess every month while depositing the monthly installments upto December, 2012. It is further averred that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.98,000/- in lump sum out of the balance sale consideration on 26.12.2012 with the ops. After adding the interest, a sum of Rs.5,31,844/- were left outstanding towards balance sale consideration as on 2.1.2013. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.10,600/- each w.e.f. 2.1.2013 to 1.5.2014 with the ops as such after adding the interest and deducting the amount deposited by the complainant, a sum of Rs.4,07,326.79/- were left payable by the complainant against the said flat. That complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.49,000/- on 15.5.2014, Rs.49,000/- on 19.5.2014, Rs.10,600/- on 2.6.2014, Rs.10,600/- on 3.7.2014, Rs.49,000/- on 14.7.2014 and asked the ops to revise the amount of installment but the ops had lingered on the matter and did not finalize the amount of revised installment. In the meanwhile, complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.10,600/- on 2.8.2014, Rs.10,600/- on 2.9.2014, Rs.10,600/- on 1.10.2014 and Rs.10,600/- on 1.11.2014. That in the month of November, 2014, complainant again approached the ops and again asked for the revised installment amount on which ops stated that the case of revise installment is still pending and till the matter is finalized, he may deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- per month on account of monthly installment. It is further averred that complainant had continued to deposit Rs.5,000/- on monthly basis w.e.f. 1.12.2014 to 1.12.2015 with the ops and inquired from the ops regarding her representation for revise installment, but even in December, 2015 the ops did not finalize the matter and failed to disclose the amount of revised installment even after twenty visits to the office of ops. It is further averred that complainant wants to clear all the balance amount of sale consideration and asked the ops to disclose the balance amount, but the ops did not calculate the same. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 28.12.2015 and Rs.10,750/- on 29.12.2015 with the ops approximately. The complainant had approached Chartered Accountant firm M/s Garg & Associates Kurukshetra and get the true calculation according to which, a sum of Rs.14.37 was deposited by the complainant in excess with the ops. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.2,982/- in excess with the ops during the period up to 31.12.2012. The amount of insurance charges w.e.f. January 2013 to December 2015 comes to Rs.1,008/- and a sum of Rs.1974/- were lying in excess with the ops. It is further averred that complainant had asked the ops to refund the excess amount to the complainant and to issue the no dues certificate vide registered letter dated 29.12.2015 but the ops failed to do the needful and even did not reply the said representation of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service by ops. It is further averred that complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 9.2.2016 to the op no.1. In response to the said notice, the op no.1 instead of refunding the excess amount to the complainant had put an additional demand of Rs.17,400/- with the complainant vide letter No.331 dated 17.3.2016 which is illegal, null and void as nothing is payable by the complainant rather ops have to refund a sum of Rs.1988/- alongwith interest to the complainant w.e.f. 1.1.2013. Hence, this complaint with the prayer that demand notice No.331 dated 17.3.2016 may be declared illegal and ops may be directed to refund the excess amount alongwith interest to the complainant and to issue no dues certificate to the complainant. They be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppal, suppression of true and material facts, jurisdiction and cause of action. It is submitted that true facts are that the flat No.1843 1^st floor was transferred in favour of complainant on 2.2.2010. As per record, the ops had received a total sum of Rs.17,30,010/- on different dates including interest as well as insurance charges. The ops never received any excess amount as alleged by complainant. It is further submitted that ops have issued a notice No.331-332 dated 17.3.2016 to the complainant for depositing a sum of Rs.17,400/- as due amount but on the request of complainant, the case of the complainant was referred to the XEN Office of the ops at Karnal. In the said letter/ notice, it is clearly mentioned that the said amount is subject to audit the case from the office of Executive Engineer, Karnal. After checking the account of the complainant by XEN Office, Karnal, the ops again issued a letter No.3032 dated 30.6.2016 to the complainant for depositing a sum of Rs.11,374/- instead of Rs.17,400/-. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the above said due amount and no dues certificate has been issued in favour of the complainant qua the flat in question. It is further submitted that since the ops have not received any excess amount, so question of refunding the same does not arise at all. On merits, it is submitted that entire amount deposited by the complainant has already been adjusted in further installments. The ops never received any excess amount. The insurance amount has been received from all the allottees/ owners. The alleged calculation is procured one. The ops have received the amount from the complainant on the basis of hire purchase tenancy agreement. Remaining contents of the complainant are also controverted and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavits Ex.C1/A, Ex.C-1/B and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered document Ex.R1.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             The complainant has alleged that he has deposited the amount of flat in question in excess with the opposite parties and ops have failed to refund the excess amount to the complainant and have also failed to issue no dues certificate. Whereas, as per contention of the ops, after checking the account of the complainant by XEN Office, Karnal, the ops issued a letter No.3032 dated 30.6.2016 to the complainant for depositing a sum of Rs.11,374/- instead of Rs.17,400/-. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the above said due amount and no dues certificate has been issued in favour of complainant qua the flat in question. The ops have also placed on file no due certificate as Ex.R1 and today have also supplied copy of no due certificate of flat in question to the learned counsel for complainant. The ops have alleged that after checking the account of the complainant by XEN Office, Karnal, they again issued a letter No.3032 dated 30.6.2016 to the complainant for depositing a sum of Rs.11,374/- instead of Rs.17,400/- and complainant has deposited the above said due amount. In this regard, the ops have placed on file receipt of Rs.11,400/- dated 16.7.2016 as mark A vide which the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.11,400/- with the ops on 16.7.2016. As per documents available on file, it is seen that an amount of Rs.10,610/- was found due in checking of the record by the higher authorities of the ops in the year 2015 and after adding interest of that amount, an amount of Rs.11,374/- was demanded from the complainant and complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.11,400/- on 16.7.2016 after filing of the present complaint i.e. 1.4.2016. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that present complaint has become infractuous as complainant herself has deposited the demanded amount after filing of the present complaint and copy of no dues certificate has also been supplied to the complainant and now at the most the original no dues certificate which has been exhibited as Ex.R1 can be ordered to be given to the complainant after placing on file Photostat copy of the same.

7.             In view of the above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being infractuous. However, no due certificate placed on file and exhibited as Ex.R1 be given to the complainant against proper receipt after placing on file Photostat copy of the same.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:28.3.2019. 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.