Haryana

StateCommission

A/26/2022

HOUSING BOARD HARYANA AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

GINDODI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                      First Appeal No.26 of 2022

                                                 Date of Institution: 31.01.2022

                                                          Date of final hearing: 14.10.2022

Date of pronouncement:27.12.2022

 

1. Estate Officer, Housing Board, Haryana, Kothi No. 103, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak.
2. Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana, Plot No. C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

…..Appellants

Versus

Gindodi Devi W/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad, R/o Pana Bethaan, Ward No. 11, Khatio Wakli Gali, Village & PO Beri, Tehsil Beri, Distt. Jhajjar-124201.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 74 days in filing the appeal stands condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.       

2.      The present appeal No. 26 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.133 of 2019, which was allowed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that on 24.04.2014 complainant applied for Type-A flat in Housing Board Society and paid Rs.1,69,000/- through Union Bank of India and Rs.2,54,000/- vide demand draft No. 652554 dated 02.03.2015. However thereafter complainant visited the spot of allotment and came to know that there was no flat at the site. On inquiry she was told by the OPs that the allotment has been cancelled and no flat has been allotted to anyone.  Vide application dated 17.11.2017 complainant asked for refund of amount deposited but no vain. On 06/07.02.2018 OPs issued circular in Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper regarding cancellation of allotment and in the same circular it was also mentioned that consumers can either take the alternate flat or ask for refund of the amount along with interest. Complainant again moved application dated 15.02.2018 for refund of amount but has not been paid by OPs till date.  Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence the complaint.

4.      In its written version, OPs submitted that complainant deposited application form along with earnest money of Rs.1,69,000/- and thereafter another sum of Rs.2,54,000/- was also paid.  However land for construction of flats was to be made available by M.C. Sampla, but some-how or the other despite payment of the entire land cost, the land was not made available by M.C. Sampla and therefore in the 20^th meeting of BOD held on 06.11.2017 it was decided that the intact applicants of this scheme may be given an option for allotment of flat in Jhajjar project of Housing Board Haryana. Accordingly a public notice in this regard was issued in leading newspapers to enable the applicants to submit their options. Subsequently, it was observed that the land which was to be allotted by M.C.Sampla, falls in institutional zone and therefore no residential project could be taken up on the area, hence it was decided that the amount of all the applicants may be refunded alongwith interest as per the provisions in Housing Board, Haryana Regulations, 1972. Since the number of applicants was high, therefore, a seniority list of all the refund applications has been prepared. Opposite party is making refund in a phased manner as per availability of funds and strictly as per the seniority list. The name of the complainant is at Sr. no.154 in the seniority list. Hence the amount would be refunded as per her turn subject to provision of terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Rohtak has allowed the complaint vide order dated 17.12.2019, which is as under:-

“After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that complainant had paid the amount in the year 2014-15 and the same has been refunded to the complainant in the year 2019 after 4 years, that too with saving bank interest. The opposite parties have used the amount of complainant for 4 years.  Moreover the complainant has also suffered harassment and litigation due to non refund of amount by the opposite parties for such a long time. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to calculate the interest @12% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.423000/-(Rupees four lac twenty three thousands only) from the date of their respective deposits by the complainant to the opposite parties till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, the amount of interest already paid by the opposite parties shall be deducted from the alleged awarded amount.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.B.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh. Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance entire records of appeal as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants argued that they were not deficient in their service and did not follow or adopted any unfair trade practice as appellants have refunded the entire amount deposited by complainant along with interest vide cheque No.021071 dated 13.09.2019 amounting to Rs.4,89,880/- and appellants cannot be held liable for paying compensation as they refunded the amount to all applicants along with interest as per their seniority list. The complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued that interest paid by appellants/OPs on the deposited amount is not just and proper.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.  

10.              It is admitted that complainant applied for flat Type-A in Housing Board Society on 24.04.2014 and paid Rs.1,69,000/- & Rs.2,54,000/-  to OPs. It is also admitted that on request of the complainant, OPs refunded the amount  of Rs.4,89,880/- to the complainant vide cheque No.021071 dated 13.09.2019, which includes interest as per the Housing Board Policy. Since, the complainant has been duly compensated by the appellants before deciding the case on merits before the District Commission.

11.    In view of our aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the above stated facts. Hence, the appellants-Housing Board, Haryana cannot be held liable to pay the awarded amount as they already compensated the complainant alongwith interest. Thus, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 is set aside and the appeal is allowed and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

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

13.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

14.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

15.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

27th December, 2022        Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)