BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 228 of 2021
Date of Institution: 13.09.2021
Date of Decision: 19.09.2024.
Bansi Lal, aged about 40 years son of Shri Panna Ram, resident of village Kutiana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta and District Sirsa, now resident of House No. 14/40, Mandir Wali Gali, Ram Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Distict Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Housing Board, Haryana Panchkula, through its Chief Administrator.
2. Chief Administrator Housing Board Haryana, C-15, Awas Bhawan Sector-6, Panchkula.
3. Estate Office, 1305 FF, Housing Board Complex, Sector -15A, Hisar.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Housing Board Haryana, Sirsa.
5. Sara Haryana Gramin Bank, Darbi Branch, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. D.S. Smagh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sachin Nanda, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.5.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that vide an advertisement, Housing Board Haryana invited applications for allotment of flats from EWS families for different sites situated at Hisar, Jagadhari, Karnal, Fatehabad, Agroha and Safidon. The period of registration for the said plot was mentioned as 07.08.2014 to 07.10.2014. The applicants were to deposit a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- as registration amount for the purpose of allotment of said flat in Sector 14-Part II, Hisar. That on 04.10.2014 complainant applied for four stories EWS flat in Sector-14 P-II and on 07.10.2014 he approached op no.5 and requested them to grant loan of Rs.1,16,000/- for flat in question and accordingly op no.5 sanctioned said loan facility to him. The said bank forwarded the application alongwith amount of Rs.1,16,000/- to op no.1 for allotment of flat to him. It is further averred that vide letter no. HBH/CRO (PM) 2016/3795 dated 14.10.2016, Housing Board Haryana declared him successful for allotment of EWS flat in the draw of lots held on 30.09.2016 and he was granted final registration no.603. That later on vide application dated 01.09.2017 with affidavit the complainant approached and requested the ops to allow him to surrender his flat and also requested Housing Board Haryana to refund the above mentioned amount deposited by him after deducting amounts as per their policy and requested that remaining amount may be refunded to op no.5. The request/ application of complainant was accepted and op no.1 agreed to refund the aforesaid earnest money after deducting amount as per policy. That in its portal at Sr. No. 2705, it has been mentioned that the Housing Board is to refund a sum of Rs.1,04,400/- to complainant but in fact the op no.1 did not refund the said amount to op no.5.
3. It is further averred that Shri Ram Dutt son of Shri Banwari Lal Swami is a close relative of the complainant and from the summons of the case for recovery titled as Sarav Haryana Gramin Bank Versus Ram Dutt bearing no. CS/395/ 2020 issued by the Court of Shri Abhishek Chaudhary, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa instituted against him, the complainant came to know that Housing Board Haryana has not refunded the amount of earnest money to op no.5 and bank also informed him this fact on his inquiry. The complainant then deposited the entire earnest amount with interest in the said bank on 12.04.2021. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,04,400/- as loan amount and also a sum of Rs.75,200/- as interest on the said amount and in this way he has deposited a total sum of Rs.1,79,600/- with the said bank only due to deficiency in service of ops. It is further averred that a sum of Rs.1,79,600/- as detailed above is still payable by ops to him which has not been paid despite his many requests though on online portal, the ops have acknowledged that it has to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- to the complainant and the refund is under process and as such complainant is entitled to get said amount refunded alongwith further interest @16% per annum compounded monthly which the complainant had to pay to the bank. It is further averred that complainant also got served legal notice upon ops on 15.04.2021 but in vain and the conduct of the ops has caused lot of mental and financial harassment to the complainant. That an earlier complaint filed by complainant in this regard was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint after removing technical defect. Hence, this complaint.
4. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 to 4 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, non impleading of necessary party, cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts and that complaint is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation. The complainant had moved application for surrender of flat on 01.09.2017 but he did not bother to contact the ops about the refund of amount till the filing of present complaint in the year 2021. On merits, it is submitted that applicant had approached the answering ops for surrender of his flat and requested the ops to refund the amount as per policy of Housing Board Haryana. Complainant is bound by the rules and regulations of Housing Board Haryana. He is entitled to refund of amount after deduction of 50% of the earnest money amount and complainant cannot claim any interest on this amount. The ops are refunding the amount to the allottees who have surrendered their flats according to the seniority list. The names of allottees, who have surrendered their flats have been mentioned on the website of the op board. It is further submitted that it is wrong that complainant came to know about non refunding of amount only from the summons of so called recovery suit against Ram Dutt. It is denied for want of knowledge that complainant deposited the entire earnest money with interest in the bank on 12.04.2021. The op’s department is suffering from financial crisis and the allottees who have surrendered their flats have been listed on the basis of their seniority and their amounts are being refunded by ops as per rules. It is further submitted that it is wrong that a sum of Rs.1,79,600/- is payable by the ops to the complainant. The complainant has never requested the ops to refund the amount to him instead of Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Darbi branch before filing of present complaint. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.5 on being impleaded and on notice appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that if complainant has surrendered his plot then it is Housing Board who has to refund the application amount as per Housing Board rules. The answering op has not received any refund from Housing Board till today. It is further submitted that as per terms and conditions of the loan documents executed by the complainant he agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith its upto date interest to the answering op immediately after the allotment of flat in question. The complainant remained successful in allotment proceedings and he has been allotted flat on his application. Hence he was required to repay the loan amount so advanced to him by the answering op alongwith its up to date interest to the answering op. But inspite of repeated requests and demands the complainant has failed to repay the same. Neither the complainant has paid any amount towards the loan amount nor Housing Board Haryana has refunded the application amount to the answering op. In the compelling circumstances, the answering op has to file recovery suit against the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- to the answering op on 12.04.2021 as per settlement between the parties. Accordingly the loan account of complainant was closed being settled and there has been no deficiency in service on the part of answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.
7. On the other hand, ops no.1 to 4 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Tek Chand, Estate Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. Op no.5 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kuumar, Branch Manager as Ex. RW5/A.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. Admittedly, the flat in question allotted to the complainant in Sector-14, P-II on 30.09.2016 by ops no.1 to 4 under Economy Weaker Section (EWS) category through allotment letter dated 14.10.2016 Ex.C5 has been surrendered by the complainant on 01.09.2017 through his application, the copy of which is placed on file by complainant as Ex.C4. It is also an admitted fact that complainant in order to get allotment of flat in question from ops no.1 to 4 got sanctioned loan facility of the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- from op no.5 on 07.10.2014. The complainant through his application dated 01.09.2017 Ex.C4 requested the Chief Administrator Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula to surrender his BPL Flat and to refund the amount as soon as possible to Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Darbi i.e. op no.5. The ops no.1 to 4 accordingly cancelled the allotment of the flat in question and became ready to refund the amount of Rs.1,04,400/- after deduction of the amount of Rs.11,600/- and prepared the list regarding surrenders of the flats by various allottees which is placed on file by complainant as Ex.C2 in which it is mentioned that refund is process. However, the ops no.1 to 4 also failed to make refund of the said amount of Rs.1,04,400/- to the complainant despite the fact that a period of more than four years elapsed till the filing of present complaint which has been filed on 13.09.2021 and even a period of more than seven years has also elapsed till today. Further more, as per policy for allotment of plots/ flats earmarked for Economical Weaker Section as mentioned in the letter dated 08.07.2013 placed on file during the course of arguments, in case a candidate surrenders the flat, entire amount will be refunded without any deduction. So the deduction made by ops no.1 to 4 from the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- is also wrong and illegal against their own policy. The pleas taken by ops no.1 to 4 specially the plea that their department is suffering from financial crisis and the amount of allottees are being refunded as per seniority have no force and substance because the complainant was allotted the flat in question under the category of BPL/ EWS (Economy Weaker Section) and even for getting allotment of flat in question the complainant even availed loan facility of the registration amount of Rs.1,16,000/- from op no.5 and due to non refund of the said amount to op no.5 by ops no.1 to 4, the op no.5 bank filed recovery suit against the complainant. In that recovery suit, the complainant had to make settlement with the op no.5 bank and had to pay an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- as per settlement as is evident from certificate of the bank Ex.C6 and account statement Ex.C7 and as such due to act and conduct of the ops no.1 to 4 the complainant who is a poor person has suffered unnecessary harassment and financial loss and as such ops no.1 to 4 are liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- to the complainant which has been paid by complainant to op no.5 and complainant had to pay unnecessary interest to the op no.5 due to deficiency in service and delay to refund the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- on the part of ops no.1 to 4. So the ops no.1 to 4 have not justified the delay in refund of the amount rather it is also mentioned in the said letter dated 08.07.2013 that for unsuccessful candidates, refund of registration/ earnest money (without interest/ compensation) shall be made within two months from the date of draw and as such ops no.1 to 4 have wrongly withheld the above said amount received from op no.5 on behalf of complainant. However, there is no deficiency in service on the part of op no.5 because it received the amount from complainant as per loan agreement.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against opposite parties no.1 to 4 and direct the ops no.1 to 4 to pay/ refund the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 13.09.2021 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the ops no.1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 19.09.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
