Haryana

Ambala

CC/103/2017

Anupama Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Huda - Opp.Party(s)

Jai Pal Singh Chuhan

30 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        :  103 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  05.04.2017

                                                          Date of decision    :   30.04.2018

 

 

Anupama Gupta w/o Sh. Tarun Mangla s/o Sh. Jai Pal Gupta resident of House of 526/5, Opp. Power House Ladwa Kurukshetra at present house no.2970/15, Panchkula.

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Chief Administrator  HUDA, Chandigarh/Panchkula.

2.       Administrator HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula, Ambala.

3.       Estate Officer, HUDA, Ambala City.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gutpa, Member.           

         

 

Present:        Sh. J.P.Gupta,  counsel for complainant.

                    Sh. K.L.Sehgal, , counsel for OPs.

 

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant was allotted a plot no.247, Sector-27, Urban Estate Ambala City by the Ops.  The Ops never issued allotment letter vide memo no. z0004/E0015/UE025/GALOT/0000000078 dated 22.10.2015 to complainant as alleged. The Ops issued the allotment letters 5130-5131 dated 26.10.2015 which was sent by the registered post on dated 28.10.2015 to the State Bank of India Ambala City and the complainant received the information/letter after 28.10.2015. The complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.5,52,735/-. In compliance of said letter the complainant deposited the amount vide Bank Draft no.505694 dated 18.11.2015 and sent the same to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Ambala City on 18.11.2015 within 30 days. As per the above said letter’s direction there was no delay on the part complainant. Because the letter dated 26.10.2015 was sent by registered post on 28.10.2015 by Ops/to the State Bank of India Ambala City  and not on 22.10.2015 but vide letter no.5646 dated 02.12.2015 the complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 27,700/- as surcharge(Delayed payment) though the amount was deposited in time. Against the said letter the complainant ran from pillar to post and made so many representation to the authority (Ops) but to no avail. Vide letter no.1629 dated 17.06.2016 the complainant was directed to deposited Rs.44,144/- and under pressure and imposing of heavy surcharge by the Ops the complainant had to deposit Rs.44,359/- vide cheque no.000001 dated 28.06.2016 under protest and made the representation/ appeal to the addressee no.2 on dated 30.08.2016.The Addressee no.2 sought the information from E.O.HUDA, Ambala City vide no.3335 dated 23.11.2016 a line 9-13 the Estate Office mentioned the dated 26.10.2015 and also admitted that the amount of Rs.44359/- was deposited under protest. The Father-in-law of the complainant also personally made representation to the addressee no.2 on 09.12.2016 and on the direction of addressee no..2 visited the office of Estate Officer, HUDA Ambala City  and got memo no.3888 dated 29.12.2016 in which it is clearly mentioned that letter no.5131 dated 26.10.2015 was sent to SBI Ambala City but the vide addressee no.2 memo no.A-4-2015/11026 dated 20.12.2016. The complainant made so many representation to the office since 2015 but the Ops did not take any action hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and suffered great monitory loss as well as mental agony and prayed for acceptance the compliant.

2.               Upon notice, OPs have appeared and filed written statement and learned counsel for the OPs stated that the application with earnest money getting financed by State Bank of India, Ambala City so this office dispatched the allotment letter to the bank itself. It was the duty of the complainant to get the relevant information from the bank as he got the earnest money financed from the bank. As per the allotment letter’s clause 4 clearly states that in case the complainant refuse to accept this allotment, he shall communicate their refusal by a registered letter within 30 days from the date of allotment letter, failing which this allotment shall stand cancelled without any notice and earnest money deposited by their, shall be forfeited to the Ops and he shall have no claim for the damage. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C/X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-11 and close her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1 & his written statement may be read as evidence and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Admittedly, the complainant had applied for plot by getting it finance from State Bank of India Ambala City & OP No.3 (Estate Officer, HUDA) has issued a allotment letter dated 22.10.2015 with regard to the allotment of residential plot No. 247, measuring 10 marls in Sector-27 Ambala and send the intimation to the Banker i.e. State Bank of India, Ambala City of the complainant on 26.10.2015 vide Annexure C-1 through registered post and Op No.3 has also intimated to the complainant.  After receipt of the letter dated 26.10.2015, the complainant has deposited the requisite amount Rs.5,53,735/- as demanded by the OP No.3 vide demand draft dated 18.11.2015 as  Annexure C-2.

 5.               The case of the complainant is that Ops have charged the surcharge on delay payment amounting Rs. 44,359/- whereas the complainant has deposited the amount well within prescribed time limit after receipt of the letter issued by OP No.3 whereas the OP No.3 has claimed that complainant has to pay the amount Rs. 552735/- within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter dated 22.10.2015.

6.                Only question is to be seen by this forum is that whether the complainant had got knowledge of the allotment letter dated 22.10.2015 prior to 26.10.2015 ?  Admittedly the allotment letter was sent by OP No.3 to financer bank i.e. SBI Ambala and a letter was issued to the complainant  vide memo no.5130 dated 26.10.2015 and copy endorsed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India. It is very much clear from the above said letter that the complainant had no knowledge about the allotment letter as well as about its terms and conditions atleast upto 26.10.2015. Although the OP No.3 has issued the letter dated 26.10.2015 to the complainant as well as the Bank but there is no postal receipt and acknowledgment has been placed on record whereas the complainant stated that he received the letter dated 26.10.2015 after 28.10.2015. In the absence of the evidence on the file, the admission made by the complainant that letter dated 26.10.2015 received by her after 28.10.2015 is hereby presumed as true and the record of the Ops summoned at the time of arguments  also show that the letter of allotment was dispatched on 26.10.2015. It is clear from the record that the complainant has deposited the requisite amount after receipt of the letter 26.10.2015 well within time  30 days i.e. 18.11.2015 through demand draft no.505691 of Rs. 5,52,735/- on account of 15% amount which was demanded by OP No.3. However, they are admitting that the abvoesaid amount has been received on 24.11.2015 after delay of 4 days but when this Forum has come to this conclusion that the complainant has received the allotment letter after 28.10.2015 duly dispatched by the OP No.3 on 26.10.2015, therefore, the plea of the OP No.3 qua delay in making the payment is not sustainable Therefore, Ops have wrongly charged amounting Rs.44,359/- as surcharge which was deposited by the complainant vide challan dated 28.06.2016 as Annexure C-6  under protest as mentioned on the deposit challan receipt. We hold that the Ops have adopted the unfair practice by charging amount of Rs. 44359/- on account of delaying in making  the payment  by the complainant. Moreover, no institute  can be expected to charge the amount/fee from any person without any fault on the part of consumer/person.

7.                In view of the above discussion, we are view that the complainant has been able to prove her case and present complaint is deserve to be acceptance and same  is hereby accepted/allowed with cost Rs. 5,000/- and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs. 44,359/- to the complainant as per Annexure C-6 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum (as charged by the HUDA) from the date of deposit i.e. 28.06.2016 till its realization.

 

2. To pay the amount of Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings.

 

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 30.4.2018

                    

 

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                 Member                                      President