BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 502 of 2019
Date of Institution : 28.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 04.03.2020.
Kishori Lal son of Shri Hari Chand, resident of # 956, Chopra Street, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Haryana, Awas Bhawan Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana).
2. The Estate Manager, Haryana Housing Board, Sonipat.
3. The General Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Head Office, Rohtak.
4. The Regional Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Fatehabad.
5. The Branch Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vinay Gandhi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sachin Nanda, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Smt. Sunita Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties no.3 to 5.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is belongs to economical weaker section and is a BPL card holder. That ops no.1 and 2 invited applications from the economical weaker section persons for the allotment of EWS flats all over Haryana. The ops no.1 and 2 also facilitated the interested persons with financial help from ops no.3 to 5. That complainant was having no house in his name or in the name of his family members and being eligible person he applied to ops no.1 and 2 through op no.5 for allotment of EWS flats for BPL family at Gharaunda, Sector-9 through an application. The op no.5 advanced loan of Rs.46,000/- i.e. application amount in the shape of loan after completing its formalities and application alongwith application amount was dispatched by op no.5 to ops no.1 and 2. After receipt of application of complainant, ops no.1 and 2 allotted provisional registration No.5/BPL/GRD 09/SHGB and final registration No.5. That ops no.1 and 2 conducted a draw of lots which was held on 19.12.2016 in which complainant was declared successful and was allotted flat in Sector-9 at Gharaunda vide allotment letter No. HBH/CRO(PM)/2016/GRD-09/SPL-5 dated 20.12.2016. The ops no.1 and 2 further directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.46,000/- on account of amount payable after draw of lots within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. That immediately after receipt of allotment letter, complainant feeling unable to maintain the financial discipline, decided to surrender the plots/ flats and accordingly he surrendered his plot through written application and affidavit dated 5.4.2017 and handed over the same to op no.5. At that time, op no.5 assured the complainant that he need not to come and need not to deposit any amount on account of loan amount as well as of interest etc. since the matter is between the bank and Housing Board Haryana. The op no.5 further assured the complainant that they will get amount of refund from ops no.1 and 2 and deposit the same in the loan account of complainant within a short span and his loan account will be closed very soon. That in the month of July, 2018, the complainant came to know that his loan account with op no.5 is still running and same is showing outstanding. That immediately he approached the ops and requested them to close the loan account since he has surrendered the plot and they again promised the complainant that refund proceedings are under process and they will close loan account and he was asked not to worry. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the ops but ops did not give any response thereof. It is further averred that complainant has received a telephonic call from op no.2 who has told the complainant that his loan account with op no.5 has become overdue and op no.5 asked to deposit overdue amount failing which to launch legal action against him. The complainant immediately rushed to op no.5 in its branch and told him that the earlier Manager has closed his loan account after getting deposited some amount in his loan account and how he called him. The op no.5 told him that his loan account has not since been closed and showing still overdue. Neither the ops no.1 and 2 have refunded the application amount to op no.5 nor any original amount as well as amount on account of subsequent interest has been deposited therein. He further threatened him to deposit overdue amount in the loan account or to close this account failing which the bank shall take legal action against the complainant. That complainant requested the ops to admit his claim and to close his loan account with op no.5 by depositing the amount of refund and not to charge any amount on account of interest and penalty but all in vain and ops have been putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and ultimately they have refused to admit the claim of complainant. That act and conduct of ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice due to which complainant is suffering recurring financial losses till today and also suffering harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant has failed to deposit a sum of Rs.46,000/- on account of amount payable after draw of lots within 30 days from the issuance of the intimation letter dated 20.12.2016. The Board will refund the registration amount after forfeiting/ deduction as per rules and policy of Housing Board Haryana. That complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against answering ops and complaint is not maintainable and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The allotted EWS flat in dispute is situated at Sector-9 Gharaunda, so complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that in the draw of lots held on 19.12.2016, the complainant was declared successful for the allotment of flat at Gharaunda, Sector-9 and the complainant was given final Regn. No.5 by the answering ops. A demand letter dated 20.12.2016 was issued to the complainant by which he was requested by answering ops to deposit Rs.46,000/- on account of amount payable after draw of lots within 30 days from the issuance of the letter. The complainant was further informed through the aforesaid letter dated 20.12.2016 that in case of failure to pay the amount of Rs.46,000/- within the stipulated period of 30 days, his registration will be liable to be cancelled without any further notice by forfeiting the amount of registration as per rules of HBH. It is further submitted that after receiving the aforesaid demand letter dated 20.12.2016 of answering ops, the complainant neither bothered to deposit the amount of Rs.46,000/- nor did he care to surrender the flat to the answering ops. The answering ops received the letter regarding surrender of flat from the complainant as well as from Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Panchkula only in May, 2017 i.e. after a lapse of more than four months of issuance of the demand letter dated 20.12.2016. It is further submitted that board will refund the registration amount after forfeiting/ deduction as per rules and policy of Housing Board Haryana. The complainant has never approached to the answering ops for his claim regarding refund of earnest money. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Ops no.3 to 5 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is neither maintainable nor sustainable in the present form qua the replying ops, as no consumer dispute is made out in between complainant and replying ops. The replying ops are the loanee bank of the complainant as complainant had availed loan facility from ops’ bank subject to repayment of the said amount alongwith interest thereon. It is further submitted that as complainant failed to repay the said amount including the chargeable interest, so now a sum of Rs. 75012.20 is outstanding against the complainant out of said loan facility availed by complainant. The complainant failed to pay the said amount which is though legally payable by complainant alongwith future interest thereon till the final realization. The complainant only just out of his own cleverness and in order to avoid his liability and also in order to put undue pressure upon replying ops have filed this frivolous complaint impleading the replying ops as party. It is further submitted that complaint is itself barred by law of limitation as according to the complainant, the flat has been surrendered on 20.5.2017 whereas complaint has been filed in the month of September, 2019, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Other preliminary objections regarding no locus standi, and complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties are also taken. It is also submitted that complaint is based on false and frivolous facts as complainant has falsely stated that complainant has surrendered the flat with the replying ops, whereas according to the surrender letter dated 20.5.2017 the complainant has surrendered flat with op no.1 according to the correspondence dated 20.5.2017, hence there is no question of any liability qua the flat on the part of replying ops. The role and part of the ops’ bank only exists as loanee bank of complainant and bank is legally entitled to recover due loan amount alongwith interest thereon as per norms the bank for which complainant is legally liable. On merits, it is submitted that loan amount was sanctioned subject to terms and conditions of the bank and repayment thereof by complainant alongwith interest amount thereon, but complainant after availing loan facility failed to make payment of the same and as per loan account of complainant, a sum of Rs.75012.20 is outstanding against the complainant as on 31.10.2019 which the complainant is legally liable to pay alongwith upto date interest thereon. The bank number of times has raised demand of due loan amount and interest thereon but complainant failed to make payment of said amount despite demands by the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of affidavit Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copies of postal receipts Ex.C3 to C5, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.C6, and copy of allotment letter Ex.C7. On the other hand, opposite parties no.3 to 5 have furnished affidavit of Sh. Inder Sain Batra, Senior Manager as Ex.RW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated the averments made in the written statement. They have also furnished copy of calculation sheet Ex.RW1, copy of balance and security confirmation letter Ex.RW2 and copy of sanction letter Ex.RW3. Ops no.1 and 2 have furnished affidavit of Sh. Rajbir Singh, Estate Manager as Ex.RW2/A, copy of letter regarding surrender request Ex.R4, copy of application for surrender of flat Ex.R5, copy of affidavit Ex.R6, copy of draw slip Ex.R7, copy of application for registration Ex.R8 and copy of allotment letter Ex.R9.
7. It is proved fact on record that complainant had applied to ops no.1 and 2 for allotment of EWS flat for BPL category at Gharaunda in Sector-9 through an application which was moved by complainant through op no.5. Op no.5 had advanced loan of Rs.46,000/- i.e. application amount to the complainant. After completing formalities, the flat was allotted to the complainant vide allotment dated 20.12.2016, but however, complainant had surrendered flat on 20.5.2017 through op no.5. But however, complainant did not receive refund of the amount of Rs.46,000/- and filed present complaint.
8. During course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has contended that opposite parties no.1 and 2 have admitted in their reply to legal notice dated 1.8.2018 that application of complainant regarding refund was received in their office on 30.5.2017 and the amount would be refunded as per his turn but till date he has not received any amount from the ops no.1 and 2. The ops no.3 to 5 have also failed to close the loan account of the complainant despite their assurance. The complainant is claiming amount of refund and interest and has also claimed adjustment of loan account on the ground that he has already paid Rs.4600/- on account of interest to op no.5.
9. It is legal obligation of complainant himself to repay loan amount with interest which he borrowed from op no.5. Learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 has contended that board will refund the registration amount after deduction as per rules and policy of Housing Board Haryana. Admittedly, still borrower has to settle account with op bank. During course of arguments, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for ops no.3 to 5 have contended that complaint of complainant is hopelessly time barred and same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and ld. counsel for ops no.1 and 2 has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. I (2019) CPJ 347 (NC). The perusal of record reveals that complainant was allotted flat vide letter dated 20.12.2016 and he had filed an application through op no.5 for surrender of the flat in the month of May, 2017 but till date the ops no.1 and 2 have not refunded any amount to the complainant even after deduction of the amount as per their rules and policy and cause of action had accrued to the complainant firstly in May, 2017 when he filed application for surrender of the flat and thereafter it continued till non receiving of response from ops no.1 and 2 regarding surrender of flat and refund of the amount and ops no.1 and 2 sent reply to legal notice dated 1.8.2018 that amount would be refunded as per his turn and thereafter complainant has got right to file complaint within period of two years from the date of lastly accrued cause of action and rather it is a continuing cause of action, so it cannot be said that complaint of complainant is time barred. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as facts of that case are quite different. The ops no.1 and 2 were liable to refund the amount of registration as per their defence plea after deduction as per their rules/ policy.
10. In view of above, we partly allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties no.3 to 5 to get refund of the due amount from opposite parties no.1 and 2 and credit the same to the account of complainant. They are further directed to overhaul the account of complainant in his presence after serving a ten days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter to settle outstanding amount, if any with the complainant and issue No dues certificate after receiving any amount which may become due against ops no.1 and 2 and from complainant. The op no.5 is liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:04.03.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
