Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 394
Instituted on : 14.08.2019
Decided on : 23.01.2024
Ritesh Jain age 28 years, s/o sh. Vinod Jain resident of H.No.1156, W.No.17, Railway Road, Rohtak..
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak.
- Bank of Baroda, HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Paras Saini Advocate for complainant.
Sh.M.K.Munjal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Anil Sharma Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he applied for a plot in Sector 21-P of HUDA through the public offer and obtained loan of Rs.180000/- from respondent no.2 for the purpose of applying of plot. The complainant was successful in the draw of lots held on 08.01.2018 by HUDA, Rohtak under General category but no intimation regarding the same was conveyed to the complainant by the respondents. The complainant came to know about the allotment of aforesaid plot when he received a call from the respondent no.2 for fulfilling the required loan formalities for the further loan of 15% of the amount of plot as demanded by the respondent no.1 after the allotment of plot. Thereafter complainant visited the bank and asked that he has no information regarding the allotment of aforesaid plot then the bank officials advised the complainant to visit the office of HUDA, Rohtak. Complainant visited the office of opposite party no.1 on 15.02.2018 and the official of opposite party intimated that he had been allotted a plot no.270 measuring 4 Marla New Scheme in Sector 21-P, HUDA, Rohtak and had also falsely said that they had telephonically intimated the complainant. The official of opposite party also supplied a photocopy of letter of intimation of allotment of aforesaid plot in which the complainant had been asked to deposit the required documents, which were to be deposited by the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of the said letter. It was also told that as the complainant had not submitted the above said required documents within the stipulated period, so the application amount of the complainant has been forfeited. Due to non intimationregarding the allotment of plot to the complainant, he could not submit the required documents. So there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 be directed to refund the application amount of Rs.180000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of due till its realisation and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. It is also prayed that opposite party No.2 be directed not to recover the loan amount till the final decision of the case .
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that it is wrong that the draw of lots was held on 08.01.2018 and no intimation regarding successful allottee in the draw of lots was conveyed to the complainant. The draw of lots was held on 16.10.2017 and not on 08.01.2018 and the allotee was intimated vide office Letter Memo No.9662 dated 24.10.2017 of the opposite party No.1 that the complainant was found successful in the draw of plot no.270 sector 21-P, Rohtak and he was requested to submit the required documents within 15 days from issue of the said letter failing which the allotment would be cancelled without giving any further notice and 10% amount deposited by the complainant as earnest money will be forfeited. It is denied that complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 on 15.12.2018 and enquired about the status of the application for allotment of the above said plot. The allotment letter was already sent to the allottee/complainant vide respondent no.1 office letter memo no.252 dated 12.01.2018 through registered post at the complainant’s address. The complainant has not provided any document uptill now in the office of opposite party No.1. Complainant neither deposited the required documents nor paid the required instalment in the stipulated time as mentioned in the information brochure/allotment letter. It is denied that due to non intimation of the plot to the complainant within time, the complainant could not submit the required documents in time with the respondent no.1. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
2. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that respondent no.2 granted a loan of Rs.180000/- to the complainant for the purpose of applying for plot in category of 4Marlas New Scheme in Sector-21P, HUDA, Rohtak under certain terms and conditions of the Bank and the complainant deposited cheques drawn on Syndicate Bank, Jhajjar, Road Rohtak as security of the loan with the respondent no.2. There is no fault on the part of opposite party No.2. The bank provides the information as soon as the Bank get any information or list regarding any HUDA plot or loan. There is no fault on the part of opposite party No.2. Rather the complainant is required to refund the loan of Rs.180000/- granted to him alongwith interest and other charges. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed against the respondent no.2.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 and closed his evidence on 30.03.2022. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 19.07.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 was given up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separately recorded statement dated 10.01.2024 being unnecessary party.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the complainant, he had taken loan from the respondent no.2 and applied for a plot in the category of 4 Marla in Sector 21-P HUDA Rohtak. All the loan amount has been deposited by the complainant. When he visited the office of opposite party No.2, he came to know that complainant has successful allottee of a plot. Respondent no.1 has not given any intimation that complainant was a successful allottee and no allotment letter was issued to the complainant and he visited on 15.02.2018 to the office of estate officer of HUDA and enquired about the allotment of plot. Then the official of opposite party No.1 told that the complainant was telephonically intimated about the allotment of plot and he also supplied a photocopy of letter of intimation of allotment of aforesaid plot in which the complainant was asked to deposit the required documents. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Respondent no.1 in his evidence has placed on record allotment letter dated 12.01.2018 as Ex.R1 and one another letter is dated 24.10.2017 placed on record as Ex.R2. As per this letter, they demanded some documents. No postal receipt, registered post receipt or courier receipt is attached with these letters, which can prove that these letters were served to the complainant. Moreover it has not been clarified by the department that whether the letter Ex.R1 was issued on 08.01.2018 or 12.01.2018 under postal receipt. The version of the complainant is that he has not received any letter regarding allotment and original allotment letter was handed over to him when he visited the office of opposite party. Thereafter complainant requested them to allot the alleged plot but they refused for the same due to non-completing the formalities within 15 days from issue of the said letter and 10% amount deposited by the complainant as earnest money was forfeited by them.As no allotment letter was served to the complainant, then how he can complete the formalities within 15 days. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the earnest money to the complainant. However, opposite party No.2 in its written statement has submitted that complainant has availed loan of Rs.180000/- from the opposite party No.2 and complainant is required to deposit the said loan amount alongwith interest to the opposite party. On the other hand, complainant in his complaint or affidavit has not submitted that he had paid the loan amount to the opposite party No.2. Moreover, he has given up the opposite party No.2 being unnecessary party on dated 10.01.2024. NOC from the bank has also not been placed on record by the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.180000/-(Rupees one lac eighty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.08.2019 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the opposite party No.2 for the settlement of loan account of complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. It is made clear that opposite party no.2 after settlement of loan account of the complainant shall return the remaining amount, if any, to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receiving the alleged amount from the opposite party No.1.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.01.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.