Haryana

Karnal

95/2014

Amit Sethi S/o Surinder Pal Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 95 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt. 04.04.2014

                                                               Date of decision:31.08.2016

 

Amit Sethi son of Shri Surinder Pal Sethi, resident of House no.203/13Extn. Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar (Haryana)

2. The Manager, Union Bank of India Main Bazar Ambedkar Chowk, Karnal.

3. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, C-3 HUDA Complex Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                            ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh Ravinder Chaudhary Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Jitender Veer Singh Advocate for the opposite party no.1&3.

 Sh. C.J. Wadhwa Advocate for opposite parties no.2.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he applied for allotment of residential plot of 8 Marlas in Sector 14P-II under the General Category, to the opposite party no.1, who had given a vide publicity in various Newspapers and also authorized the number of banks for the sale of Application forms and collection throughout Haryana. He deposited his application with Union Bank of India G.T. Road, Karnal alongwith demand draft of Rs.2,34,950/- bearing no.654742 dated 5.7.2013 including the cost of WEB Form Rs.50/- drawn on YES Bank Ltd. Sector-12 Karnal. The amount of draft was to be debited to the Savings Bank Account of his mother, who was maintaining her Savings Bank Account with YES Bank Karnal. The application was received by opposite party no.1, which was entered at serial no.273472 and registered at serial no.UEO12/14-PII40964. The draw of plots was held on 29/30.12.2013 by opposite party no.1. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 started to refund the earnest money/application amount to unsuccessful candidate. His family members had also applied for allotment of plots in sector 14-PII and Sector-33P -1Hissar. They all received their refund orders vide speed post, but he did not receive the refund. His father took up the issue with opposite party no.1 on phone a number of times, but on 27.1.2014 he was told by the concerned official that refund orders was sent by speed post no.EH339978498 IN and the same was delivered on 21.1.2014 by the Postal Authority at Karnal. Further on enquiry by his father with the help of Postal Authorities it was found that the said speed post was rightly delivered at the address of Amit Wassan and the refund related to him. His father pursued the matter at various levels. On 20.3.2014 a telephonic message was received from opposite party no.2 regarding release of the payment of his earnest money of Rs.2,34,900/- in respect of the application form deposited by him with opposite party no.2. He was also directed to submit the statement of his bank account for the period of January, 2014 to 21.3.2014 out of which the draft was issued. He informed his father about the said telephonic message, who submitted the desired information with opposite party no.2 on 21.3.2014 and thereafter demand draft no.26717379 dated 21.3.2014 for Rs.2,34,900/- was issued in his favour and the same was received at his residential address at Karnal on 24.3.2014. The aforesaid acts and conduct of opposite parties no.1 to 3 caused him mental pain, agony and harassment without any fault on his part. He has claimed interest @ Rs.12% on the amount of Rs.2,34,900/- from the date of holding the draw of plots i.e.29/30.12.2013 upto 25.3.2014 alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 3 put into appearance and filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that application no.273472 provided in finance flag by Union Bank of India and refund of Earnest Money was sent to the Branch Manager Union Bank of India Sector 17-Chandigarh by Chief Administrator HUDA Panchkula, vide letter dated 10.01.2014. Payment of Rs.7413272100/- was remitted vide cheque no.533721 dated 10.1.2014 drawn on Axis Bank Panchkula for unsuccessful 26806 applicants in the scheme of Sector 33P-1 and Sector 14P-II, Hisar. Therefore, the department had discharged its obligation within time by making payment to the Union Bank of India on 10.01.2014. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief against opposite party no.1 and 3.The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2 and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant.

                   On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant applied for the plot under Non-Finance Scheme and regarding Non Finance Scheme, the HUDA directly refunded the amount to the applicants and the bank had nothing to do with the same. The dispute, if any, was between the complainant and the HUDA. The bank of opposite party no.2 received the refund amount of applicants from HUDA and thereafter compiled the data and came to know that excess amount was received and e-mail was sent that the amount of HUDA Hisar was not tallying and bank was in receipt of excess amount of Rs.5,76,706/-. After compiling the statement of account, it was transpired that HUDA department inadvertently sent the amount, without any description to opposite party no.2. On checking the record it was confirmed that the complainant had not received the payment back. Thereafter, immediately without any delay the bank made the payment to the complainant on 21.3.2014, vide demand draft no.267371. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex. C2 to C16 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of S.S.Dhania Branch Manager Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP2/B and Ex.OP2/C and Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/E have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances  of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had deposited application with Union Bank of India G.T.Road Karnal alongwith bank draft of Rs.2,34,900/- drawn on YES Bank Ltd. Sector 12 Karnal, for allotment of 8 marlas residential plot in sector 14P-II, Hisar, under general category. The draw of plots had taken place on 29/30.12.2013. He was not successful, therefore, became entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him alongwith application. HUDA started refunding the amount and issued refund orders to the unsuccessful candidates. As per version of the complainant his other family members, who had also applied for the allotment of the plots received refund orders dated 10.1.2014 by speed post on 23.1.2014, 25.1.2014 and 26.01.2014. The complainant did not receive the refund voucher, therefore, he through his father approached the opposite parties no.1 and 3 and made efforts to find out as to why the refund order was not issued. Ultimately, on 20.3.2014 the complainant received telephonic information from Union Bank of India Karnal that his earnest money amount of Rs.2,34,900/-was being released by way of demand draft no.654742 dated 21.3.2014. The demand draft sent by opposite party no.2 was received on 24.3.2014. The complainant has claimed interest on delayed refund of the earnest money deposited by him for allotment of the plot.

8.                The opposite parties no.1 and 3 in the written statement submitted that the application no.273472 provided in the finance scheme by Union Bank of India and refund of earnest money was sent to Branch Manager Union Bank of India Sector 17C Chandigarh by the Chief Administrator HUDA Panchkula, vide letter dated 10.01.2014. Payment of Rs.7413272100/- was remitted, vide cheque no.533721 dated 10.01.2014 drawn on Axis Bank Panchkula and thus obligation on was discharged by HUDA within time.

9.                On the other hand the opposite party no.2 has taken stand that the complainant had applied for plot under Non-Finance Scheme and HUDA directly refunded the amount of the applications under Non-Finance Scheme. The opposite party no.2 received excess amount of Rs.5,76,706/- from HUDA and intimation was sent to HUDA through e-mail that the amount was not tallying and thereafter on checking the record it was found that the complainant had not received the amount of earnest money, therefore, demand draft dated 21.3.2014 for Rs.2,34,900/- was issued in his favour.

10.              It is admitted fact that the applicant had applied for allotment of the plot under Non-Finance Scheme. Opposite parties no.1 and 3 have produced the copy of the record of the applications sent by Union Bank of India under Finance Scheme and the name of the applicant figures therein at sr. no.273472. When the complainant had not sought any financial assistance from opposite party no.2, there could be no question of mentioning his name in the list of the applicants, who availed financial assistance from opposite party no.2. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the name of the complainant was wrongly mentioned by opposite party no.2, may be due to inadvertence in the list of the applicants, who had availed facility of finance from opposite party no.2. Under such circumstances, HUDA was justified in remitting the total amount of all the applicants mentioned in the list by the opposite party no.2 under Finance Scheme and for that reason no separate refund order in favour of the complainant could be issued by HUDA. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 3. However, the fact remains that the complainant did not get refund of earnest money immediately after being declared unsuccessful, on account of fault on the part of the opposite party no.2. Refund orders were issued by HUDA in favour of other family members of the complainant, who had also applied for the plots, but were unsuccessful, on 10.1.2014 and the same were received by them on 23.1.2014, 25.1.2014 and 26.01.2014. The complainant received the demand draft issued by opposite party no.2 dated 21.3.2014 on 24.3.2014. Thus, he suffered loss of interest for the period of 25.1.2014 to 24.3.2014. Consequently, he is held entitled to get interest from opposite party no.2 @ 9% per annum for the said period.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay 9% interest on the earnest money i.e. Rs.2,34,900/- to the complainant from 25.1.2014 to 21.3.2014. We further direct the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 31.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member