Haryana

Kurukshetra

26/2018

Rattan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HBC - Opp.Party(s)

Ramesh Kapoor

06 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.26 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.02.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:06.11.2018.

Rattan lal son of Chhitar Mal, aged 80 years, R/o House No.1520/12, Azad Nagar, near Bhagyashali Press, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Haryana).

                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Haryana, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Estate Branch, Shop No.9-10, Shopping Complex, Sector-4, Kurukshetra.

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Ramesh Kapoor, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. S.C.Saini, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rattan Lal against Housing Board, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was allotted a flat No.547-SF in Housing Board Colony at Sector-29, Kurukshetra vide letter bearing No.1669 dt. 06.05.2013 as he was declared successful vide letter dt. 10.06.2011 in the draw of lots held on 11.03.2011 by the Ops.  It is alleged that the complainant deposited Rs.37,000/- in the year 2010 (at the time of submission of his application form), Rs.37,000/- in the year 2011, Rs.95,561/- on 03.06.2013 and Rs.47,050/- on 28.06.2018 and in this way, he deposited total Rs.2,16,611/- with the Ops.  It is further alleged that as per terms and conditions of letter dt. 06.05.2013, the Ops were required to deliver the possession of the flat complete in all respect and having development work at the spot within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of said letter, but the Ops did not deliver the actual and physical possession of the flat to the complainant inspite of repeated demands and requests.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops to refund the entire amount alongwith interest but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.2,16,611/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that HBH had advertised 246 flats for BPL category in 2010 and the complainant submitted an application for allotment of a flat under the scheme and deposited earnest money of Rs.37,000/- alongwith the application form.  The draw of lots was held on 11.03.2011 and since the applicant remained successful in the said draw, therefore, he was directed to deposit another amount of Rs.37,000/-.  The allotment letter was issued to the complainant vide memo No.1669 dated 06.05.2013 and the complainant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.95,561/- and take possession of the house within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter.  It is pertinent to mention here that some of the allottees filed CWP No.5180 of 2013 titled as Rekha and others Vs. HBH regarding allotment of BPL flats.  Due to filing of said writ petition, the possession of the flats was not given to any of the successful applicants.  The said CWP was finally disposed off on 20.08.2015 and thereafter, revised allotment letters were issued in favour of all the successful applicants and the complainant was directed to deposit another amount of Rs.46,177/- within 30 days.  The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.47,050/- on 28.06.2016, however, he neither took possession of the flat nor he executed Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement.  Notice in this regard was issued to the complainant on 02.06.2016 and 30.06.2016.  It is further stated that vide letter dated 27.06.2017, the complainant requested for surrender of flat No.547/SF and requested for refund of amount.  The surrender request of the complainant was processed and sent to Head Office for refund as per policy.  The request of complainant was also considered and his name stands in the seniority list.  The seniority list is also displayed on the website of HBH.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is a senior citizen and he is aged about 80 years.  He further contended that the complainant had been allotted a flat No.547-SF in Housing Board Colony at Sector-29, Kurukshetra vide letter bearing No.1669 dt. 06.05.2013.  The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.2,16,611/- to the Ops.  He further contended that the complainant had deposited the entire amount which was demanded by the Ops but the possession of flat in question was not given by the Ops till today.  The next contention of counsel for complainant is that the complainant had applied to the Ops for refund of the amount which was deposited by the complainant to the Ops but the Ops did not refund that amount till today.  The complainant has written many letters to the department but they have not refunded that amount. 

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops admitted that the complainant has deposited the amount mentioned in the complaint but due to filing of one writ petition in Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the possession of flat in question was not given to the complainant within time but when the Ops proposed to give the possession of flat in question to the complainant, the complainant has applied to refund of amount.  He contended that the claim of refund of complainant is under protest but there is a senior list under which they are ready to give that amount to the complainant.

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on perusal of file, it seems that it is admitted case by the Ops that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.2,16,611/- to the Ops and so, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the refund of said amount.  The Ops have not refunded the amount to the complainant, so, we find that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and they are deficient while rendering services to the complainant. 

10.                Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.2,16,611/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:06.11.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.