Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/87

Gurcharan Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajiv Sharma Ghanauli, Adv.

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                        Consumer Complaint No. :87 of 03.02.2021

                         Date of decision                 :16.12.2022

 

 

Gurcharan Kaur wife of Didar Singh resident of VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Rupnagar 

                                                          ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Govt. of Punjab, Mohali
2. Punjab IDBI Bank, Branch Ropar    

...Opposite Parties

                         Complaint underConsumer Protection Act

QUORUM

 

                         SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                         SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Rajiv Sharma Ghanauli, Adv. For complainant

Sh. Maninder Singh Badwal, Adv. counsel for OP1.

Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Adv. For OP2.

 

ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that in the month of December 2020, the opposite parties given the advertisement in the various newspapers for the allotment of 289 residential plots of different types and the last date for closing of the scheme was 14.1.2021 and the same was again extended. As per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties as published in the advertisement, the complainant booked a plot measuring 20 Sq. Yards in General Category, lady and senior citizen and as per the instruction of the opposite parties, the complainant make the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- through demand draft of opposite party No.2. i.e. IDBI Bank, Ropar along with application form fee. Thereafter, the draw of plots were opened in which the name of the complainant was not mentioned. Thereafter, as per the terms and conditions, when the complainant visited the office of the OP1 and requested to OP1 to refund his amount then it was came to the notice of the complainant that OP2 has not make the payment of the complainant, which was deposited by the complainant with the OP2. After came to know this thing, the complainant went to the office of the OP2 and on inquiry the bank official of OP2 told him that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was received by the IDBI Bank on 12.1.2021 and was dispatched to the Nodal Branch (Fortis Branch) on 12.1.2021 through track on courier. As per information received on mail dated 18.6.2021 from Fortis Branch at IDBI Bank limited, the said application was received in the branch on 18.6.2021. There is no fault on the part of the complainant as the complainant deposited the amount through demand draft on 12.1.2021 but due to the negligence of both the parties, the application for allotment of plots is not put in the draws which was held by the opposite party No.1 as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as application form.  Thus, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant sought the following relief against the OPs:-

1. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of damages along with interest to the complainant in the interest of justice.

2.       In reply, the OP1 has filed written reply taking preliminary objection; that the complainant has no cause of action to file this consumer complaint against the answering OP as the complainant has failed to show/prove the deposit of application form along with earnest money with the answering OP1; that the complainant has no locus standi to file this consumer complaint against the answering OP; that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and answering OP. On merits, it is stated that the answering OP had invited applications for allotment of 289 residential plots at ECO City 2, New Chandigarh. Initially, this scheme was open from 7.12.2020 to 14.1.2021, however, the closing date for submitting applications for allotment of plot was extended upto 10.2.2020. As per brochure of this ECO City 2 scheme, 10% price of plot as earnest money was required to be deposited along with application form by the applicants. The application form along with requisite earnest money was not received from the complainant and therefore, her name was not included in the draw of lots held on 22.2.2022. Therefore, no deficiency is made out against answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against the answering OP.

3.       In reply, the OP2 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is not a consumer; that the complainant is guilty of suppressioveri and has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission; that the intricate and contentious questions of facts and law are involved in the present complaint, which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence, which cannot be adjudicated by way of summary procedure; that the complaint is misconceived and frivolous and has been filed with ulterior motives and is aimed at extracting money from the answering OP; that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant against the answering OP; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP; that the applicant is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that the answering OP has dispatched the application form along with demand draft for further submission on the date of its receipt i.e. 12.1.2021 through trackon couriers. So, the answering OP has timely couriered the application form along with demand draft and have not committed any delay for further submission of application form along with demand draft. Rest of allegations made by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied by the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

4.       The complainant has tendered her duly sworn affidavit of the Ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Mankamal Singh, EO of GMADA and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Shuchi Khurmi, Manager IDBI Bank Limited Ex.OP2/1, along with documents Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP2. 

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

5.       It is very important to mention here that the complainant only due to the mistake of OP2, the complainant himself did not find the name of the complainant in the draw. Due to this, the opportunity to buy the plot was lost from the hands of the complainant. The OP2 is duty bound to deliver the application form and demand draft of the complainant in time with the OP1 but the OP2 did not do it, which is clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP2.

During the arguments, the learned counsel for the OP1 has placed on record instructions/procedure of GMADA, SAS Nagar i.e. OP1 and in Column No.9 of the said instructions it is clearly stated that “the Controlling Branch after closure of the scheme will submit soft as well as hard copy of the data of applications received at all the authorized branches as per the format supplied by the General Manager (IT & C), PUDA. The original application forms are to be submitted to the Assistant Estate Officer (Ecocity)/Superintendent (Ecocity), GMADA, SAS Nagar, within a week after the closure of the scheme”.  But in the present complaint, the OP2 neither submitted application nor deposit the earnest money in the shape of demand draft with the OP1 whereas it is the sole responsibility of the OP2. OP2 is the authorized branch for collection of application forms and earnest money at ECO City2, New Chandigarh.

6.       In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint against OP2 with the direction to pay a lum sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                                   (RANJIT SINGH)

          Dated.16.12.2022                                                                          PRESIDENT
 

 

                                            

                                                                                    (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                                                   MEMBER