Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/246/2021

Poonam Dahiya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Housing Board Haryana, - Opp.Party(s)

Karamvir Singh Chhikara

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                                               

                                                          Complaint Case No. 246 of 2021

                                                          Date of Institution: 20.9.2021

                                                          Date of Decision: 2.9.2022

 

Smt. Poonam Dahiya aged about 50 years daughter of Ajit Singh and wife of Jai Bhagwan c/o Ganpat Rai Ex-MLA, Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                                       ….Complainant.

Versus

 

Housing Board Haryana, Plot NO. C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana) through its Chief Administrator.

 

                                                                   …....Respondent/OP. 

 

                                    COMPLAINT UNDER

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before: -     Sh. Vijay Singh, President

                Sh. Om Parkash Tuteja, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Pankaj Chhikara, Adv. for complainant.

OP already exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

                   Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that the OP Housing Board Haryana advertised to construct multi-storey flats of category A, B, C. & EWS. The complainant applied with the OP for registration of flat type-B in her name and submitted the application form with the OP and deposited the booking amount of Rs. 3,30,000/-on 10.4.2013. It is averred that the complainant was found eligible in the draw for allotment of flat of type-B category and she was allotted provisional registration No. RTK/T-B/CBI/HE/28 as well as final registration No. 121 and for this, a letter bearing No. HBH/CRO (PM)/2013/602 dated 11.1.2014 was issued by the OP to the complainant. The complainant as per the schedule of the payment, deposited the required amount with the OP and in the last, the complainant deposited Rs. 5,00,000/-vide DD No. 764051 dated 29.3.2017 for allotment of flat in her favour. In this way, total sum of Rs. 26,65,000/-has been deposited by the complainant with the OP.  As per the scheme, the balance amount of the final cost of the flat was to be paid in equal 60 monthly installments after handing over the possession of the flat. The complainant time and again visited the OP to know the development of construction of flats but she (complainant) was stunned to know that no construction was going on there and no flats were constructed by the OP. So, the complainant approached the OP for refund of deposited amount with interest. It is averred that the complainant also sought information under RTI Act and in reply to that RTI, the OP informed that the Housing Board of Haryana, in meeting held on 6.11.2017, decided to close the project. The complainant also preferred an appeal to seek further information under RTI Act, 2005 and it was informed by the OP vide their letter dated 22.12.2020 that the scheme was scrapped in the board meeting on 6.11.2017 and flats not constructed. The complainant requested the OP a number of times to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 26,65,000/-along with interest but the respondent did not refund the same to the complainant. It is averred that the OP neither constructed the flat nor refunded the amount, thereby committed deficiency in service and breach of its promises causing loss to the complainant. Thus the complainant is entitled for the relief from the OP and accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the OP refund the amount of complainant amounting to Rs. 26,65,000/-along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission found deem fit and proper.

2.                Upon notice, the OP failed to appear before this Commission, despite service of notice sent through registered post and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.12.2021.

3.                The complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7 and closed the exparte evidence.                      

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by the complainant very carefully and minutely.

5.            During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for complainant reiterated the contents of her complaint and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents placed on record by the complainant.

6.                After hearing the exparte arguments of learned counsel for complainant, going through the facts of the case file and perusing the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely, we have observed that the only issue in the present complaint is that as to whether the complainant had deposited the claimed amount of Rs. 26,65,000/-with the OP and if so, whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the same with compensation from the OP, as sought by the complainant through the present complaint.

7.                The bare perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant has supported the version of the present complaint with her duly sworned affidavit Ex. CW-1/A whereby she has tried to prove her case with supporting documents annexed with this complaint. As per the submission of learned counsel for complainant, the document (Ex. P-1) is advertisement/broucher published by the OP, which clearly shows that applications were invited for registration for allotment of type-A, B, C and EWs mutli storey flats to be constructed at NH-71, Jind Road, Rohtak and wherein, it also finds mentioned the Price of flats, Accommodation and Mode of payment. Ex. P-2 is the document/letter dated 11.11.2014 issued by OP whereby the complainant was issued letter of allotment of Type-B multi story flat in the draw of lots held on 15.11.2013 wherein the terms and conditions of payment to be made by the applicant has been mentioned. Ex. P-4 is letter of OP dated 10.11.2016 revising the cost of flats whereby the cost of type-B flat was revised tentatively to Rs. 36.90 Lacs from Rs. 33.30 Lacs which was advertised in March 2013 by the OP. Ex. P-5 is letter written by the complainant seeking RTI information and Ex. P-6 is the reply given by the OP on 4.8.2020. In reply to the RTI sought by the complainant, the OP clearly informed the complainant that in the meeting 210^th of BOD was held on 6.11.2017 and it was decided to close the project and made clear that the refund will be made as per seniority list which made separately of the scrapped policy. Further that the interest on the deposited amount was to be paid with the rate of 3.5% per annum on account of project dropped by the Board. We have also gone through the Refund list, attached with this document, which shows that in the said list, the name of complainant Poonam Dahiya is at Serial No. 90 for refund of amount of Rs. 26,65,000/-.

8.            From the perusal of above mentioned documents, one thing is very much clear that the complainant was allotted a flat of type-B in Housing Board Haryana in the draw of lots held on 15.11.2013 and she was to make the payment as per schedule given in the letter dated 11.11.2014 (Ex. P-2). Refund list (Ex. P-7) placed on record clearly proves this fact that the complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs. 26,65,000/-with the OP, who have not denied the refund of the deposited amount to the depositor including the complainant. As per Ex. P-6, the OP have framed a scheme to refund the deposited amount to various depositors and as per Ex. P-6, the name of complainant is at Sr. No. 90 in the list of such persons, refund is being given as per seniority list, out of which 54 persons have already received their amount.

9.                We have perused both the lists i.e. Ex. P-6 & Ex. P-7, which is not denied by the complainant. From Ex. P-6 & Ex. P-7, it is clear that the refund being given by the OP to the depositors and the complainant would get its amount as per seniority list (Ex. P-6). The counsel for complainant argued that the OP has released the amount upto serial number 54, but the complainant is in dire need of money deposited by her as she has to purchase an another house.

                Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for complainant and in the interest of justice, we direct the opposite party Housing Board Haryana to consider the case of complainant sympathetically and release the deposited amount of Rs. 26,65,000/-to the complainant on priority basis (with interest as applicable under the terms and conditions of allotment) as the complainant is in dire need of money for the purpose of another house, as discussed above.

10.      The complaint stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner.                        11.          Certified copies of order be sent to the parties free of costs. 

12.          File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: - 2.9.2022

 

                                    (Om Parkash Tuteja)                            (Vijay Singh)

                                Member.                                          President,

                                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.

 

Present: Sh. Pankaj Chhikara, Adv. for complainant.

              OP already exparte.

                                     

                   Vide separate detailed order of the even date, the present complaint stands disposed off.  Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. 

               File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: - 2.9.2022

 

                                    (Om Parkash Tuteja)                            (Vijay Singh)

                                Member.                                          President,

                                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.