Haryana

Karnal

CC/137/2016

Sandeep Kumar S/o Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Housing Board Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

Om Parkash Kashyap

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.137 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 02.05.2016

                                                         Date of decision:09.01.2018

 

Sandeep Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shri Gurnam Singh resident of House no.446/11, Adarsh Nagar, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

Housing Board, Haryana, Housing Board Colony, House no.743-A, Sector-4, Urban Estate Karnal through its Estate Manager.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri O.P.Kashyap Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Virender Sachdeva Advocate for OP.

 

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 a flat under the BPL category and draw of lot was held on 10.3.2011. He was allotted a flat no.308/FF having area measuring 17.44 sq. meter, situated in sector 28-A, vide allotment letter no.4869 dated 6.6.2011. Total value of the flat was fixed at Rs.3,21,700/-. An amount of Rs.37000/- were deposited at the time of moving the application and Rs.37000/- after the draw of lots. On 14.6.2013 the OP wrote a letter to him vide which OP demanded Rs.95916/-. He deposited an amount of Rs.99995/-. Thus, in all he deposited an amount of Rs.174995/- with the OP and remaining amount was to be deposited in 13 years monthly installment of Rs.1783/-each after the delivery of the possession of the flat. OP sent a letter dated 12.4.2016 to him, vide which interest of Rs.40000/- has been demanded. The said demand of OP was quite illegal, null and void because he has been regularly paying the amount to the OP. It is mentioned that till the possession of the flat has not been delivered to him, hence there is delay on the part of the OP and he is entitled for the interest on the amount of Rs.173995/-. On receipt of the said letter he visited the OP and requested for withdrawal of the said letter as the demand of interest amount was quite illegal, null and void, but OP did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of the process of law and cause of action. On merits, it has been submitted that letter bearing no.4869 dated 6.6.2011 is not a allotment letter. This letter issued for intimation that the complainant is declared in draw and the demand of Rs.37000/- on or before 30.6.2011. Further the house number alleged to be allotted to the complainant is wrongly mentioned as 308 whereas the fact is that the house number 309 has been allotted to the complainant. It is admitted fact that letter dated 14.6.2013 was sent for demanding Rs.95916/- and that the complainant deposited Rs.99995/- but it is denied that the complainant has deposited Rs.174995/-. The actual amount deposited is Rs.173995/-. It has further been submitted that the interest has been charged as per the policy framed by the Housing Board, Haryana and conveyed vide letter no.720 dated 14.3.2016. As per the policy, the interest liability becomes Rs.2480/- per month on the cost and therefore, a sum of Rs.84320/- interest becomes due. As per policy the interest has been given to the complainant on his deposited amount i.e. Rs.20535/- plus Rs.23779/-. Balance interest has been demanded from the complainant of Rs.40006/- from the complainant. The detail was supplied to the complainant vide letter no.1681 dated 16.5.2016. The allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 14.6.2013 but the possession of the house could not be handed over due to stay order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Thus, the demand of interest made by the OP from the complainant is quite legal and valid and complainant is bound to pay the same. The possession of the house has been delivered to the complainant on 26.5.2016. Complainant submitted his consent for cost and mode of payment acceptance on 26.5.2016 mentioned in the allotment letter. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on 6.1.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 21.4.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             It is admitted fact that complainant applied for a flat under the BPL category and by way of draw on 10.3.2011, the complainant was allotted flat no.308/FF having area of 17.44 sq. meter situated in sector 28A Karnal, vide allotment letter no.4869 dated 6.6.2011. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited Rs.37000/- with the application form and Rs.37000/- after the draw of lots. The total cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.321700/-. It is also admitted that on 14.6.2013 the OP wrote a letter to the complainant for deposit of Rs.99995/- and the same were deposited by the complainant. It is further admitted fact that the OP has written a letter no.949 dated 12.04.2016 to the complainant, vide which an amount of Rs.40000/- on account of interest has been demanded from the complainant.

7.             The complainant alleged that the letter no.949 dated 12.4.2016 is illegal, null and void because the complainant has been regularly paying the amount to the OP as demanded by the OP and there was no delay of any kind. It is further alleged that still the possession of the flat has not been delivered, so there is delay on the part of OP and so the complainant is entitled for interest on the amount of Rs.1,73,995/- deposited by the complainant.

8.             The OP contended that the interest has been charged as per the policy framed by the Housing Board Haryana and conveyed vide letter no.720 dated 14.3.2016. It is further contended that as per the policy the interest liability of the complainant becomes Rs.2480/- per month on the cost and so a sum of Rs.84320/- becomes due on account of interest. It is further contended that as per policy, the interest has also been given to the complainant on his deposit amount i.e. Rs.20535/- plus Rs.23779/-. After deducting the interest of the complainant, the balance interest i.e. Rs.40,006/- has been demanded from the complainant. The detail was supplied to the complainant vide letter no.1681 dated 16.05.2016. It is further contended that the allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 14.06.2013. But the possession of the flat could not be handed over due to stay order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. So the demand of interest quite legal and valid and complainant is bound to pay the same. It is further contended that the possession of the house has been delivered to the complainant on 26.5.2016 and the complainant submitted his consent for cost and mode of payment acceptance on 26.5.2016.

9.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant has only challenged the letter no.949 dated 12.4.2016, vide which demand of Rs.40000/- as interest has been made by the OP. The complainant has produced in his evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, the applications under RTI Act and its replies as Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. The complainant had obtained these informations under RTI Act regarding the flat of one Mahesh Kumar son of Subhash Chand resident of Kaithal from the Public Information Officer-cum-State Manager Housing Board Faridabad. From Ex.C2 it is clear that the payment of Rs.1000/- and Rs.1300/- has been demanded as interest from said Mahesh Kumar. Similarly from Ex.C4 it is clear that the interest @ of Rs.2268/- per month has been added for three months. The complainant has placed the broacher of the Housing Board Haryana as Ex.C8. From note 5 of this Broacher, it is very much clear that the rate of interest of the scheme is 10 per cent per annum, monthly installments will be worked out alongwith interest @ 10% per annum (monthly compounding). The other documents i.e. Ex.C9 to Ex.C14 are regarding the amounts taken or deposited regarding the flat in question of the complainant. The complainant has not been produced any such document vide which it can be proved that the complainant is not liable to pay interest on the delayed payments as per the terms and conditions. On the other hand, the OP has specifically stated that the OP has calculated the interest on the amount due as well as on the amount deposited by the complainant. The interest on the amount deposited by the complainant has already been deducted. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that the letter, vide which the interest has been demanded by the OP is illegal and void. Hence no deficiency is found on the part of the OP.

10.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 9.1.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member                Member