BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
C.C.No.145 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 17.05.2016.
Date of Decision: 29.03.2017.
Mukesh Kumar son of Sh.Lala Ram r/o Thakar Basti Fatehabad District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Housing Board Haryana through Chief Administrator/ Chairman Housing Board, Plot No.C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6 Panchkula (Haryana).
- ICICI Bank Branch Fatehabad, through its Branch Manager, Behind Anaz Mandi, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.
..Respondent
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.M.L.Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.M.L.Garg, counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh.U.K.Gera, counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER
- The complainant has brought the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had applied for allotment of flat in Sector 9, Housing Board, Bahadurgarh but he had been unsuccessful in the first draw but as per High Court order dated 01.05.2012 the OPs had again given another chance to the complainant to participate in fresh draw and demanded a sum of Rs.69,000/- through letter memo No.HBH/CRO (PM) 2012/6152 dated 29.06.2012. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a demand draft No.204082 dated 16.07.2012 of Rs.69,000/- in favour of Chairman, Housing Board, Haryana but after 2/3 days the complainant received a telephonic call from the office of OPs whereby he was asked to send fresh draft in the name of Housing Board Haryana instead of Chairman Housing Board, Haryana. It has been further averred that the complainant got issued fresh demand draft No.204193 dated 24.07.2012 of Rs.69,233/- from OP No.2 and handed over the same to Op No.1 on 25.07.2012 but the complainant had received an amount of Rs.69,000/- vide cheque No.000158 of OP No.1 which not only caused loss of interest from 27.01.2013 to 01.10.2015 (after 6 months from the date of receipt of payment) but also caused loss of Rs.233/- also to the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C7.
3. On notice OPs appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that according to the policy of the department, the complainant was entitled for simple interest @ 5.5 % per annum which (Rs.7786/-) has already been paid to the complainant through cheque No.563479 dated 18.02.2016, duly confirmed by the Chief Account Officer, Haryana Board, Panchkula vide letter dated 15.09.2016 and now no interest is left to be paid to the complainant on that amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 because when the complainant had been unsuccessful in draw then his amount was returned along with interest of Rs.7786/-. Objections about maintainability, cause of action, estoppal and non-joinder of necessary party etc. have also been taken. Other pleas have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the present complaint has been filed just to harass it and the same is not maintainable. it has been further submitted that the Op No.2 had issued the demand draft as per request/instruction of the complainant on submitting of duly filled in proforma by him. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Roshan Lal, EO. Housing Board, Haryana as Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 and Annexure R3.
5. The complainant by filing replication/rejoinder controverted the averments made by the OPs in their replies.
6. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused meticulously.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Op No.1 made considerable delay in refunding the amount therefore, the complainant is entitled for interest @ 18 % per annum along with an amount of Rs.233/- which has been withheld by the OP No.1. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance of case law titled as B.K.Prashar Vs. State of Haryana 1991 (2) RRR 493 page 630. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the interest to the complainant has already been paid as per the norms of the department. In support of his arguments he drew the attention of this Forum towards clause No.3 of Mode of Allotment/Draw of Lots (Annexure C3), which is as under:
“The initial deposit of the applicants not successful in the draw will be refunded in full without interest by the concerned bank (s) where the application has been deposited payable at par in all the branches authorized to sell and receive applications. The refund cheques will be dispatched at the correspondence address by the concerned banks latest by 30.10.2010. Simple interest @ 5.5 % per annum will be paid for delay beyond 30.10.2010. In case draw is not held within 6 months from the closing date of registration, then simple interest @ 5.5 % will be paid to the applicant after expiry of 6 months from the closing date of registration to the date of draw”
It is not disputed that the complainant was unsuccessful in draw, therefore, the Op No.1 had returned an amount of Rs.69,000/- to the complainant but it is not understandable when the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.69,233/- with Op No.1 duly admitted by it in reply then why the Op No.1 had withheld amount of Rs.233/- with it. Undisputedly, the Op No.1 had paid Rs.7786/- to the complainant on account of interest on the amount deposited by the complainant but there is nothing on the file to show that what formula the Op No.1 had applied in calculating such amount. The act and conduct of the Op No.1 clearly reveals that it has taken the matter in a very casual manner despite the fact that it is a statutory body duly run by Government as it has also failed to explain the reason as to why the payment was refunded after a considerable delay. The date of draw was 27.07.2012 and as per clause No.3 Mode of Allotment/Draw of Lots (Annexure C3) the payment was to be made within 6 months failing which the amount would carry interest @ 5.5 % per annum. Since the complainant was unsuccessful in the draw therefore, the OP No.1 was to refund the amount within 6 months but it has not been done so, therefore, the complainant is entitled for the interest from 27.01.2013 to 01.10.2015 (after 6 months from the date of receipt of payment).
8. Keeping in view the above discussion this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case against Op No.1 only. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint partly against OP No.1 and dismiss against Op No.2. As per calculation filed by learned counsel for the complainant the amount of interest for the period 27.01.2013 to 01.10.2015 on the amount of Rs.69,000/- @ 5.5 % per annum comes to Rs.10,120/- whereas OP No.1 has paid Rs.7786/-only which shows that the Op No.1 had paid less amount of Rs.2334/- than the actual amount of interest i.e. Rs.10,220/-. Accordingly, OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2334 + Rs.233/- = Rs.2567/- to the complainant. OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation. Order be complied within 30 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:29.03.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
(Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member, Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
