Haryana

StateCommission

A/776/2022

KRISHAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOUSING BOARD HARYANA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

05 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA            

 

                                                First Appeal No.776 of  2022

Date of the Institution:19.12.2022

Date of order: 05.05.2023

 

Krishan Lal S/o Sh.Des Raj, R/o Village Seonsar, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt.Kurukshetra.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana, C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula Haryana.
2. Estate Manager, Housing Board Haryana, Sonipat.

                                                                   .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Respondent already proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 03.03.2023.

 

                                                 ORDER

 

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.776 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 20.10.2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (In short “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.228 of 2021, which was partly allowed.

2.      The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that respondents-opposite parties issued advertisement for the allotment of residential flats for the persons living below poverty line in the year 2013 at Sonepat. The cost of the flat was Rs.4,49,800/-.  Appellant applied for allotment of EWS flat under BPL category vide application dated 22.08.2013.  He also availed loan of Rs.44,000/- from Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Park Road, Kaithal.  The complainant deposited Rs.44,000/- at the time of registration. The draw of lots was held on 13.05.2014 and complainant was allotted flat No.E-231/SF Housing Board Colony, Sector-18, Sonipat and he was intimated in this regard vide memo No.HBH/CRO (PM) 2014/22337 dated 05.08.2014 by the OP No.1. He was asked to deposit Rs.44,000/- vide letter dated 05.08.2014, which was also paid. Thereafter he also deposited Rs.49,500/- with the OPs.   An allotment letter bearing No.5721 dated 20.12.2017 was also issued by Ops. In total, the complainant has deposited Rs.93,500/- upto 20.12.2017. However as complainant was suffering from financial constraints so he decided to surrender the allotted flat and vide letter dated 03.01.2018 requested OP No.2 for the refund of the amount. OP NO.2 asked him to wait for 30 days for refund. The complainant requested the Ops to refund the deposited amount, but, to no avail.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.    Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.Ps. and the reply was filed, wherein the averments raised in the complaint were  strongly denied and refuted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               While taking the preliminary objection it was alleged that  complainant has concealed true and material facts.  It was stated that no specific date for handing over the possession of the flat was mentioned  either in the  scheme floated by the Board or in the allotment letter even. There was no question of violation of any terms and conditions either of scheme or that of the allotment letter on the part of OPs. The complainant has never approached  later with any request as alleged. On merits, complainant requested for refund  on 03.01.2018 with Ops and his request letter will be entered in the seniority list of 2018 and will be duly dealt with and the adjudication of the learned authority was not called for. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.

5.      After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned District Commission, Panchkula has allowed the complaint partly vide order dated 20.10.2022, relevant portion is reproduced below:-

“xxxxxxxxxx the present complaint is partly allowed with the directions to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.71,500/- alonwith interest @ 9% p.a. (S.I.) w.e.f. 03.01.2018 i.e. when the complainant had sought the refund of the amount. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation charges.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

7.      Arguments heard on behalf of the appellant. File perused.

8.      It is not disputed that the complainant  had applied for the registration of residential flat under BPL category which were to be constructed by Ops at Sonipat. It is also admitted that he was allotted flat No.E-231/SF Housing Board Colony, Sector-18, Sonipat and was accordingly intimated as well vide memo No.HBH/CRO (PM) 2014/22337 dated 05.08.2014 by the OP No.1.  In all the complainant paid Rs.93,500/- to the Ops. It is also not disputed that complainant vide his application dated 03.01.2018 had sought the refund of his deposited amount from OP No.2 due to his financial constraints. The relevant regulations relating to refund as provided in Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulation, 1972 Clause 12 is reproduced as under:-

“Clause 12. Refund of amount of initial payment-If the complainant withdraws his amount till the date of offer of houses by the Board, 10% of the amount deposited with complainant at the time of registration shall be forfeited to the board and balance refunded to him without any interest.

          Since the complainant had already sought refund of the deposited amount and as such  the complainant was entitled for the deposited amount subject to some reservations.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint partly and has in its own wisdom allowed him compensation and litigation expenses.

9.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as having rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, the appeal  stands dismissed.

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

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

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

5th  May, 2023                                                                                 S. P. Sood                                                                                                                                 Judicial Member

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)