Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/243/2011

Mrs. Anudweep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Greater mohali Area Development Authority, - Opp.Party(s)

Lt. Col L. S. Bedi (Retd)

13 Jul 2012

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IIPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 243 of 2011
1. Mrs. Anudweep f- 84, Army Flats, Sector-4, M.D.C, Panchkula-134114. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Greater mohali Area Development Authority,Sector -62, S.A.S. Nagar(Mohali) through its Chief administrator .2. IDBI Bank ,Chandigarh. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Lt. Col L. S. Bedi (Retd), Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 13 Jul 2012
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[Complaint Case No: 243 of 2011]

 

Date of Institution

:

31.05.2011

Date of Decision    

:

13.07.2012

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                               

Mrs. Anudweep, F-84, Army Flats, Sec.4, M.D.C. Panchkula-134114.

 

                                                                   ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Sector 62, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) through its Chief Administrator.

2.                 IDBI Bank Sec.8-C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

 

Argued by: Lt. Col. L.S. Bedi (Retd.), Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. J.S. Bagga, Adv. for OP No.1

Sh. Sourabh Bindra, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Mrs. Anudweep, complainant, has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying for the following reliefs against the opposite parties:-

i)                   To refund the amount alongwith interest at the fixed deposit rate of 10% w.e.f. 20.1.2003;

ii)                To pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment; and

iii)              To pay litigation expenses.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1, in order to survey the viability of some housing projects, issued advertisement (C-1) in the Hindustan Times in its issue dated 26.12.2002 inviting applications for allotment of plots or constructed houses.  In response to the said advertisement, the complainant applied for a HIG House at Zirakpur vide application No.3611.  She paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the opposite party vide draft No.024915 dated 13.1.2003.  It has been further pleaded that as per clause 8 of the advertisement, the opposite assured that in case the scheme is withdrawn or allotments are not made within two years from the date of closing of the demand survey, for any reason whatsoever, PUDA would refund the application money to the applicants within a maximum period of three months of the expiry of two years without interest.  The scheme opened on 26.12.2002 and closed on 20.1.2003. The case of the complainant is that as the opposite party failed to refund the application money within three months of the expiry of two years, therefore, the complainant wrote letters to opposite party No.1.  Vide letter dated 17.1.2011, the opposite party asked the complainant to surrender the original receipt of Rs.3,000/-.  The complainant surrendered the same on 27.1.2011 but the amount has not been refunded to her till date. 

                   According to the complainant, the failure of the opposite party to refund the amount alongwith interest, despite the fact that the period mentioned in the advertisement has expired, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  In these circumstances according to the complainant she is entitled to reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In the reply filed by opposite party No.1 it has been admitted that the advertisement (C-1) was issued and in response to the said advertisement the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,000/- for allotment of a HIG house.  The case of the opposite party is that some land was acquired for the development of the area in pursuance of the said scheme, however, the farmers, whose land was acquired, challenged the said acquisition before the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh and the matter has not been decided so far.  In these circumstances, according to the opposite party, the area could not be developed.  However it has been pleaded that the application money was refunded to the complainant vide demand draft dated 15.7.2011.  It has also been pleaded that interest shall also be paid to the complainant in due course.

4.                           Opposite party No.2 filed its separate written reply and stated that neither the legal notice was addressed to it nor the complainant ever approached it.  It has been pleaded that the refund, if any, was to be made by opposite party No.1.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Admittedly, in response to the advertisement issued by opposite party No.1, the complainant applied for a HIG house and paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as application money vide draft dated 13.1.2003.  It is also the admitted case of opposite party No.1 that the area, which was to be developed, could not be developed on account of some litigation between it and the farmers, whose land was acquired. 

7.                           Clause 8 of the Advertisement (C-1) reads as under :-

“8.     In case the scheme is withdrawn or allotments are not made within two years from the date of closing of the Demand Survey, for any reason whatsoever, PUDA will refund the application money to the applicants within a maximum period of three months of the expiry of the two years without interest.”

                   From the bare perusal of this clause, it is apparent that the application money was to be refunded within three months in case the area is not developed within two years.  Thus, the amount was to be refunded within three months after the expiry of two years from the date of closing of the demand survey. However, the amount was refunded to the complainant vide draft dated 15.7.2011 and that too after filing of the present complaint, which amounts to deficiency in service.  But, even till today, interest on the said amount has not been paid, as is admitted by opposite party No.1 itself.  The opposite party No.1 has utilised the amount for such a long time, hence it is liable to pay interest on the amount kept by it from the date of deposit till it was returned.  In these circumstances, non-payment of interest on the above said amount, amounts to deficiency in service.

8.                           In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and Opposite party No.1 is directed  to -

(i)                pay interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant on the amount of Rs.3,000/- from the date of its deposit till payment.

(ii)             pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by her;

(iii)           pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.                           This order be complied with by opposite party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to refund the entire amount with penal interest @ 18% per annum from the date of order till actual payment besides payment of costs of litigation.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13.07.2012.

 

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

 


MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER