Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/155/2018

DINESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV

15 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.    155 of 2018

                                    DATE OF INSTITUTION:                 02.11.2018

                                                DATE OF ORDER:                            15.01.2024

 

Dinesh Raman son of Late Sh. Jaipal Singh R/o H.No.-2247, Gitanjali Enclave Gate No.2, HUDA Sector-13, Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana, Plot C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2. Estate Manager, Housing Board, Dadri Gate, Bhiwani.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

 

Present:-        Sh. Gourav Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. N.M. Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant’s father had applied for allotment of Type-C Flat at NH-71 Jind Road, Rohtak against reserved category for Govt. employees in the year 2013 for which Rs.13,900/- was paid on 19.04.2013. His father being successful in a draw for the Flat, given final registration no.94 dated 15.11.2013. So, complainant’s father also paid Rs.2,78,000/- on 11.12.2013 as 10% tentative cost of the flat.  Further, he also paid Rs.4,20,000/- to the OP  on 12.02.2014 as 15% cost of the flat. Thereafter also paid Rs.2,78,000/- as 10% cost of the flat on 14.05.2014.  Complainant has submitted that his father died on 19.09.2014. However, complainant deposited two installments of Rs.2,78,000/- each on 12.05.2015 and 27.11.2015 to the OP. Complainant has submitted that he received a letter of revised costing of the flat from OP on 10.11.2016. It is submitted that due to financial hardship, complainant vide application dated 22.11.2016 requested the OP for transfer of title and for refund of deposited amount of Rs.15,32,000/-.  It is submitted that OP uploaded a seniority list of refund cases on their website in which name of complainant was at 160 for refund of amount Rs.18,10,000/-.  As the complainant was in early need of money, so he got served legal notice upon the OPs but of no avail.  However, complainant received a cheque of Rs.16,36,014/- from OP but as per complainant it was having less rate of interest than the charged by OPs @ 17% per annum, in case of failed to deposit the installment in time. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking directions to OPs to refund the interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.15,32,000/- from the date of deposit i.e. from 19.04.2013 to till the date of decision of this Commission. Further to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                     Upon  notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability,  locus standi and estoppel. On merits,  On merits, inter alia, it is admitted that complainant deposited two demand drafts of Rs.2,78,000/- each and letter dated 10.11.2016 was issued regarding revised tentative cost.  It is submitted that there was a calculation mistake while preparing the refund case of complainant as an amount of Rs.2,78,000/- was wrongly calculated in account of complainant.  Hence, the refund amount was wrongly mentioned as Rs.18,10,000/-. On rechecking, the error was detected and due amount of Rs.16,36,014/- was refunded to the complainant.  It is urged that in case complainant desiring higher rate of interest, he should not have accepted the aforesaid refund amount.  It has been submitted that refund of Rs.16,36,014/- has been made against the amount of Rs.15,32,000/- deposited by complainant.  In the end, prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with heavy cost.

3.                     In evidence of complainant, affidavit Ex. CW1/A of complainant alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-12 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                     On the other side, learned counsels for OPs tendered documents in evidence as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence.  

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

6.                     It is admitted case of complainant that he has received  Rs.16,36,014/- from the OPs vide letter (Annexure C-10) as refund of the deposited amount (s) towards the premium of flat in question.  But the grievance of complainant is that the OP has paid less rate of interest where on the contrary, the OPs charges rate of interest @ 17% per annum in case of default in making payment to the OPs on prescribed date.  Learned counsel for complainant has argued that since the OPs have used the amount of complainant for a considerable long period but it had paid only a nominal rate of interest which amount to deficiency in service and negligence as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. As such, the counsel has vehemently argued that the OPs may be directed to pay the rate of interest as prayed for in the complaint.

7.                     Learned counsel for OPs has argued that the as per rules and regulations of the department, the principal amount alongwith interest has already been paid to the complainant. As such, no amount is due towards the OP department and prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.

8.                     Complainant to support his version has drawn our attention towards a letter (Annexure C-11) which having subject- Charging of interest on delayed period made before possession houses/flats, whereby it reveals that  the Chief Revenue Officer (PM), for Secretary, Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula has directed their Estate Manager(s) to charge interest @ 17% per annum from the allottees, and it may be increased 1% in view of lending rates by the commercial bank (nationalized banks).  From the record, it reveals that father of complainant had applied for the flat in the year 2013 and complainant received refund thereof on 11.06.2018.  In this way, the OPs have used the amount of complainant for about five years. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per Annexure C-10 the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs.18,10,000/- but he has been paid  less amount.  It is nowhere mentioned in the pleadings of the parties that what rate of interest has been given by the OPs, nor the complainant has given any details of the amount due towards the OPs. 

9.                     After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it seems that the OPs have paid less rate of interest to the complainant. As such, due to negligent & deficient behavior of OPs complainant  has been dragged into this unnecessary litigation. By such act & conduct of OPs, complainant must have suffered monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)        To pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amounts deposited by complainant from April 2013 till refund of the amount in June 2018.

(ii)       The amount already refunded to the complainant be deducted from the due amount, if any on computation.

(iii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iv)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                                                                       

                        In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforementioned directions for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.     

Announced.

Dated:15.01.2024.

 

 

(Shashi Kiran Panwar)                    (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                       Member                           Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission,Bhiwani