Haryana

StateCommission

A/995/2015

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOUSING BOARD,HARYANA - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN GUPTA

17 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      995 of 2015

Date of Institution:      20.11.2015

Date of Decision :       17.05.2016

 

Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Sajjan Singh, R/o Behind Canal Colony, Singhana Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Housing Board Haryana through its Managing Director, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.      Manager, Housing Board Haryana, H.No.77-A, Opposite Old Sessions House, Old Housing Board Colony, Rewari.

3.      The Central bank of India, Branch Office, Mahendergarh through its Manager.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Varun Gupta, advocate for appellant.

Shri Vinod Kumar Thakur, Sub Divisional Officer, for respondents No.1 and 2.

                             Shri Anirudh Kush, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated October 23^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      In pursuance to advertisement issued by Housing Board Haryana-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2/respondents inviting applications for booking of flats and advertised by The Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank’)-Opposite Party No.3/respondent, the complainant/appellant submitted application (Exhibits RW3/G & RW3/H) by getting the application money financed from the bank.  Mahendergarh Branch of the bank was authorised to receive application on behalf of the Housing Board. The complainant received intimation from the bank that the draw was held on 02.05.2011 and complainant was successful in the said draw of lots. The complainant approached the bank and at the instance of bank, the complainant deposited financed amount of the application money Rs.1,57,000/- alongwith interest of Rs.3285/-, total Rs.1,60,285/-, on 28.06.2011. Later the complainant came to know from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 that he was not in the list of successful allottees in the draw. The list provided by the bank was of total applications. The complainant filed complaint stating that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 be directed to allot flat and pay compensation. In the alternative, the complainant sought refund of Rs.1,60,285/- from the opposite parties.

3.      The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing reply. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their reply though admitted issuance of advertisement and having, authorised the Mahendergarh Branch of the bank to receive the applications; however, submitted that in the draw held on 02.05.2011, the name of the complainant did not appear in the list of successful applicants. Thus it denied its liability.

4.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply admitted the complainant having requested for financing the application money of Rs.1,57,000/- and informing the complainant on the basis of list received from the Nodal Branch. It was submitted that as per agreed terms, in case the applicant remains unsuccessful, in that eventuality, the applicant was liable to pay interest on the application money to the bank and the amount of the application money was to be refunded to the bank by the Housing Board. It also admitted the deposit of Rs.1,57,000/- with the Housing Board, which was to be paid by the complainant alongwith interest. It was submitted that the bank had informed the complainant about the list of successful applicants for allotment of flats. Denying any kind of deficiency, dismissal of complaint was prayed for.

5.      The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties finding no substance in the version of the complainant dismissed the complaint.

6.      Undisputed facts are that the Housing Board Haryana had invited the applications for allotment of MIG flats. Mehendergarh Branch of the bank was one of the authorised branches for receiving the applications. The bank also advertised for financing the application money, that is, 10% of the total cost of the flat. It is not disputed that the complainant also got financed the application money of Rs.1,57,000/-. It is also not disputed that in the event of applicant being unsuccessful, the applicant was only liable to pay interest to the bank and the amount of the application money was to be refunded by the Housing Board directly to the bank and not to the applicant. The confusion arose because of wrong communication at some level treating the list of applicants as the list of the successful applicants in the draw.

7.      Besides other loan documents viz Application-cum-agreement for EMD Finance (Exhibit RW3/G), loan application for earnest money finance (Exhibit RW3/H), Demand Promissory Note (Exhibit RW3/I), Agreement (Exhibit RW3/J), Irrevocable Authority Letter (Exhibit RW3/K) and Undertaking (Exhibit RW3/L) were executed. Though it is undisputed fact that the complainant was unsuccessful and as per the agreement, in the event of being unsuccessful, the complainant was only to pay interest on the application money and the application money was to be refunded directly by the Housing Board Haryana to the bank. However, because of wrong communication, the bank got the entire amount of application money alongwith interest deposited from the complainant. Thus, as a matter of fact it is the bank-opposite party No.3 which committed deficiency in service in giving wrong communication and wrongly getting deposited Rs.1,57,000/- which amount has to come to the bank from the Housing Board. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record and thus committed error in dismissing the complaint by not allowing the refund of Rs.1,57,000/- to the complainant.

8.      Hence, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. By allowing complaint, the opposite party No.3-The Central Bank of India, is directed to refund Rs.1,57,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8½% per annum i.e. the rate of interest which the bank had charged from the complainant as per document Exhibit REW3/I, from 28.06.2011, that is, the date on which the amount was got deposited, till its payment. The opposite party No.3 is directed to comply with the direction given above within 45 days of receipt of copy of order.

 

Announced 17.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL