District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 461/2020.
Date of Institution:02.12.2020..
Date of Order:26.05.2023
Dharmendra Sharma s/o Shri Bhagwan Lal Sharma R/o MCF 582, Adaarsh Nagar, Mehrana Road, Near Saraswati School, Ballabgarh, Faridabad (Hr.) – 121004.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Housing Board Haryana (through its Chairman), C-15 Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana – 134109.
2. The State of Haryana (through its Chief Secretary) R/o 4th floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Ms. Rachana , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Rana , counsel for opposite party. No.1.
Opposite party No.2 given up on 3.8.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that opposite party No.1 through lucky draw held on 30.12.2014 allotted flat/apartment at Faridabad 2,62,75 Conv. Into Sec.-65 and acknowledge the complainant vide application dated 03.03.2015 and demanded 15% amount to be paid to opposite party No.1. The complainant booked Type-B apartment having total sale consideration of Rs. Rs.17,90,000/- paid 15% amount of the total sale consideration, as demanded by opposite party No.1, an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- vide demand draft dated 24.032015 drawn at State Bank of India. It was pertinent to mention here that the sector where the complainant had booked his apartment was now converted into Sector-65 without any reasons. After making the payments as and when asked by the opposite party No.1, the complainant visited at the site of the allotted apartment but till this time there was not even the construction material had been placed by the opposite parties. There was no construction started after getting the requisite payments from the complainant in the year 2014. The complainant wrote letter to opposite party No.1but the opposite party No.1 intentionally failed to reply the letters of the complainant which clearly shows their malafide intentions and raised serious doubts on services of the opposite party No.1. The complainant run form post to piller in view of getting any satisfactory answer but the opposite party failed to reply, therefore the complainant alongwith some other allottees, wrote a letter on CM window (Haryana) but the opposite parties failed to reply. The complainant, from 2016 to 2020, enquired of the starting of construction of the flats in issue and the opposite party No.1 responded not to the query of the complainant. It was pertinent to mention that the complainant wrote the application dated 14.07.2018 to the opposite party No.1, which was duly received by the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 failed to reply and complied with the terms of the application. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) refund the amount of Rs.4,48,000/- paid by the complainant towards the total sale consideration of the apartment as per the allotment letter.
b) 20$ p.a from the respective dates when the complainant made payment of the instalments of the opposite party No.1 till the realization of the decretal amount.
c) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 1,00,000 /-as litigation expenses.
e) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, towards the loss of opportunity that has been suffered by the complainant as in this opportunity the complainant could have purchased a suitable house for himself.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that The complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and had concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum with a view to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the answering opposite party. It was submitted that the complainant was allotted a flat in Sector-56, Faridabad and construction of flats/apartment was on full swing and possession of flat would be handed over to the complainant as early as possible. It was further submitted the site of Sector-56 where the complainant was booked and allotted flat not converted into Sector-65 in any manner, otherwise the complainant would had been informed by the answering opposite party. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Ms. Rachana, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that I give up OP No.2 i.e. The State of Haryana (through its Chief Secretary) R/o 4th floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh being unnecessary. Accordingly, opposite party No.2 was given up vide order dated 03.08.2022.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Housing Board Haryana with the prayer to: a) refund the amount of Rs.4,48,000/- paid by the complainant towards the total sale consideration of the apartment as per the allotment letter. b) 20% p.a from the respective dates when the complainant made payment of the instalments of the opposite party No.1 till the realization of the decretal amount. c) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 1,00,000 /-as litigation expenses. e) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, towards the loss of opportunity that has been suffered by the complainant as in this opportunity the complainant could have purchased a suitable house for himself.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/1 – affidavit of Dharmendra Sharma,, Ex.CW1/2 – brochure,, Ex.CW1/3 – letter dated 06.02.2015, Ex.CW1/4 - photocopy of demand draft,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of R.A.Gautam, Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Faridabad.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that as per Housing Board Policy, the deposit of unsuccessful applicants in the draw of lots will be refunded in full and will pay interest @ 5.5% p.a. for delay in draw beyond six months.
8. While taking a cue from the refund policy, the opposite party is directed to pay to the deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 5.5.% p.a. from the date the last deposit was made . Opposite party is at liberty to deduct the money from the deposited money as per refund policy of the Housing
Board. There are no orders as to other costs. The complaint is allowed to the aforementioned extent only. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 26.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
