Haryana

Ambala

CC/134/2017

SMT Saroj Chanana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Estate Officer Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

Kapil Aneja

10 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; AMBALA.

C.C.No.134/2017.

Date of Instt.: 11.05.2017.

Date of Decision:  10.05.2018.

Smt.Saroj Chanana wife of Bharat Bhushan Chanana resident of House No.2183, Sector-9, Urban Estate Ambala City, Haryana.

..Complainant

     Versus

1.Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Sector-7, Ambala City, Haryana.

2.Indian Bank, Ambala City through its Manager.

                                                                             ..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:       Sh.U.S.Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.Chandeep Bindra, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Sh.Kavinder Chawla, counsel for the OP No.2.

                  

ORDER

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased a plot measuring 04 marlas EWS No.2183 Sector 9, Ambala through sale deed No.1875 dated 13.09.2002 from its previous owner allotted by OP No.1 vide letter No.2236 dated 08.07.1987. At the time of purchase/ re-allotment of the plot in question all the dues were cleared and nothing was due towards the complainant. After the purchase of the property the Op No.1 had demanded an amount of Rs.34518/- vide letter No.EO/AMB/2008-7209-A dated 15.04.1998 on account of enhanced compensation which was deposited on 09.05.2008 in the account of the Op No.1 duly maintained by Op No.2 without any delay as per the prevailing system vide receipt No.2765 dated 09.05.2008. In the first week of March 2017 the complainant received a notice No.Z0004/E0015/UE025/US171/0000000688 dated 18.02.2017 from Op No.1 whereby an amount of Rs.90352/- were claimed despite the fact that there was nothing due on the part of the complainant. Her husband visited the Op No.1 but no satisfactory reply was given to him. Due to the said notice, the complainant felt ill and the doctor had advised complete bed rest besides medicines. The complainant and her husband sought information under RTI vide application dated 14.03.2017 but when no information was provided he had to approach the higher authorizes and thereafter the department had given incomplete reply dated 02.05.2017 without enclosing the account statement of plot in question.  The Op No.1 had not tried to confirm the deposited amount and even the Op No.2 has also failed to update the record of deposited amount timed and properly as the complainant has already deposited the due enhanced amount vide receipt No.2765 dated 09.05.2008 against the demand letter dated 15.04.1998.  The act and conduct of OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C13.

2.                On notice Ops appeared and field their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objection such as maintainability, locus standi and suppression of material facts. It is denied that dues were cleared and no outstanding amount was towards against the complainant. In fact the Op No.1 had issued letter No.EO/AMB/2008-7209 on 15.04.2008  and not in the year 1998 and it came to know about making of payment after filing of the present complaint as she has mentioned about the receipt bearing No.2765 dated 09.05.2008 for the first time. In the year 2008 no centralized banking and electronic record was available as such only manual entries were made. In the year 2017, HUDA (HQ), Panchkula had directed the Op No.1 in the revenue meetings to update all the record of the allottes of Urban Estate, Ambala, Naraingarh regarding any outstanding arrears as well as updating all the manual records into electronic record and for that purpose the Op No.1 had directed to issue notices to all the allottees/ re-allottees and in case no payment was deposited by them they were required to remit amount as per rules and policies of the HUDA. The complainant after receiving the said letter dated 18.02.2017 never approached the OP No.1 and had failed to show any receipt of payment  and if the receipt had been shown the matter could have been solved.  The alleged sufferance is just because of the act and conduct of the complainant herself as after receiving of the notice dated 18.02.2017 she had followed the matter to the OPs resulting into wasting of time. A sum of Rs.531/- is still due towards the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the same which came into knowledge of the Op No.1 after updating and auditing of the account of the complainant. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint have been made.

3.                OP No.2 in its separate reply has taken preliminary objections such as barred by limitation, cause of action and jurisdiction etc.  The complainant is not the consumer of the Op No.1 as she has no bank account with it. Rs.34518/- were credited in the account of the Op No.1 on receiving from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. Other contentions have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R7.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

 5.               The complainant had purchased a plot measuring 04 marla EWS No.2183 Sector 9 Ambala City vide sale deed No.1875 dated 13.09.2002 from its previous owner/allotee vide Annexure C1 and the same plot was allotted by Op No.1 to its previous owner vide letter no.2238 dated 08.07.1987. The grouse of the complainant is that she had paid all the dues amount qua enhancement etc. on 09.05.2008 through Op No.2 to Op No.1 as per demand notice Annexure C2 and nothing was due towards her but despite that the Op No.1 had issued show cause notice under Section 17 (1) of HUDA Act, 1977 Annexure C4 demanding Rs.90352/- upto 18.02.2017 (subject to audit). Since nothing was due towards her but despite that the OP No.1 had issued this notice causing harassment and physical problem to her, therefore, she had to go for medications and medical tests Annexure C5 and Annexure C6. It has been further argued that the Op No.1 in information received under RTI disclosed that there is no receipt on the file qua depositing of Rs.34518/- by the complainant and asked for providing the same if the amount has been deposited which clearly shows either Op No.2 has not updated the account or the Op No.1 had intentionally harassed the complainant and this reply has been issued in order to fill the lacuna, wrong acts as well as deficiency in service on its part. Lastly, prayer for acceptance of the complaint has been made.

6.                Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of Op No.1 that it came to know about making of payment after filing of the present complaint as the complainant has mentioned about the receipt bearing No.2765 dated 09.05.2008 for the first time. In the year 2008 no centralized banking and electronic record was available as such only manual entries were made. In the revenue meeting held in 2017, HUDA (HQ), Panchkula had directed the Op No.1 to update all the record of the allottes of Urban Estate, Ambala, Naraingarh regarding any outstanding arrears as well as updating all the manual records into electronic record and for that purpose the Op No.1 had directed to issue notices to all the allottees/ re-allottees and in case no payment was deposited by them they were required to remit amount as per rules and policies of the HUDA.

7.                          It has been argued on behalf of Op No.2 that the amount of Rs.34518/- deposited by the complainant had been credited in the account of Op No.1 and the complainant is not the consumer of the Op No.2. Both the OPs have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

8.                          The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.34518/- demanded through Annexure C2 vide Annexure C3  with OP No.2 where the Op No.1 is having its account on 09.05.2008 but it is strange that the Op No.1 without verifying the fact about depositing of dues amount by the complainant had issued notice dated 18.02.2017 Annexure C4 to the complainant. Moreover, the Op No.1 in order to fill this lacuna in its reply has mentioned that for the first time the receipt qua depositing of amount to the tune of Rs.34518/- has been produced after filing of the present complaint. In the reply the Op No.1 went to the extent of writing that in the year 2008 there was not centralized banking system and the records were being maintained manually. These stands taken by the Op No.1 are not only questioning on its working but also putting a question on the working of banking system/OP No.2 with which the Op No.1 is having account. It is worthwhile to mention here that HUDA is/has been the life line of Haryana State and the omission which the Op no.1 has committed in the present case is not acceptable from HUDA/such like institution and it should be taken with heavy hands because the Op No.1 by making lame excuses and connected story has tried to shift the burden of its wrongs either on the shoulder of complainant or Op No.2. The amount of Rs.34518/- was deposited by the complainant in the year 2008 and the Op No.1 had sent the demand notice Annexure C4 in the year 2017 which shows how negligent it is because being a government institution Auditing of the accounts is must on regular intervals, therefore, the plea qua not knowing of deposited amount to the tune of Rs.34518/- by the complainant is not believable. The plea qua outstanding amount of Rs.531/-, towards the complainant is also not supported with any document rather it appears that the same has been made in order to hide out the misdeeds done on behalf of Op No.1 and it has updated the account of the complainant when the complainant has produced the receipt of the bank for payment of the enhanced amount in the court. It is worth mentioned here when any consumer deposits any amount in any HUDA matter usually three receipts are issued by the bank i.e. one for the consumer, one for HUDA and other third copy the bank retains with it but despite that they had not updated the account of the complainant since 2008 which tentamounts to unfair trade practice.

9.                           For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that deficiency in service is well established on the part of OP No.1 only and OP No.2 is not at fault, therefore, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant against OP No.2 and allow it against OP No.1.  Due to the act and conduct of Op No.1 the complainant has not only faced mental agony, harassment and even fell ill resulting into approaching this Forum, therefore, the end of justice would be if we direct the Op No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation etc. The Op No.1 is further directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid for unfair trade practice. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days. It is further clarified that the Chief Administrator HUDA, Panchkula is directed to take the appropriate action against the erring officer/official after holding the enquiry and to recover the said amount from that concerned erring officer under intimation to this Forum within two months. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties and quarter concerned free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:      10.05.2018

 

                        

                           

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)      (D.N.ARORA)

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                      PRESIDENT