Haryana

StateCommission

A/265/2020

HOUSING BOARD HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASMER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KUMAR GARG

29 Jun 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    265 of 2020

Date of Institution:  22.06.2020

Date of Decision:    29.06.2020

 

1.      Housing Board Haryana through Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Plot No.C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana.

 

2.      Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Rohtak.

 

 

Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Jasmer Singh son of Shri Hari Ram, resident of House No.153, Gali No.1, Vasant Vihar, Rohtak.

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the appellants.

                            

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

The Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and the Estate Manager, Housing Board Haryana, Rohtak, who were opposite parties before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by learned District Forum, whereby, the complaint filed by complainant Jasmer Singh was allowed and the opposite parties directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,93,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of respective deposits by the complainant to the opposite parties, till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      According to the complainant, he was an Ex-serviceman. He had applied for a flat, Type-B, Sector-5, Rohtak in the year 2014. The opposite parties allotted the flat vide allotment memo dated 10.02.2015 to him. He had already paid an amount of Rs.3,93,000/- i.e. Rs.1,57,000/- through bank loan at the time of application and Rs.2,36,000/- through bank draft. From the date of publication for inviting the application from public, the opposite parties did nothing. There was also no hope in the near future regarding handing over of possession to the complainant. The complainant had been running from pillar to post in the office of opposite parties so as to get back his hard earned money, which he had deposited with the opposite parties but despite the same, the opposite parties failed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant, which amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint praying therein that the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,93,000/- paid by him along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written version stating therein that the complainant had deposited the registration amount of Rs.1,57,000/- with his application form and further deposited Rs.2,36,000/-, in all Rs.3,93,000/-. He was not interested in the allotment of flat but was interested only in refund of the amount. The construction of the flats had been delayed as the project was to be made available by HSVP i.e. HUDA. Since, a portion of the land was under litigation, the possession of clear land had not been handed over to Housing Board Haryana. The opposite parties did not have the finances to refund the amount of all the applications and hence a seniority list of all refund applications had been prepared, which was available on the site of Housing Board Haryana and the refunds being made as per seniority list. The complainant’s number was at serial No.1351 of 2017. The amount would be refunded to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

4.      In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) and documents (Exhibits C1 to C-12). On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered affidavit (Exhibit R1).

5.      As mentioned above, learned District Forum allowed the complaint and granted various sums of money to be paid to the complainant.

6.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the land for the project was to be made available by HSVP. However, some portion of the land being under litigation, therefore, its possession had not been handed over to Housing Board Haryana. As such, the opposite parties did not have the entire land for the construction of flats.

7.      According to the complainant, he had deposited an amount of Rs.3,93,000/- for allotment of a flat with the opposite parties, which fact is not disputed by the opposite parties. After waiting for a long period, the complainant moved application for refund of his amount as he was facing financial crisis. He was unwell being suffering from cancer and as such in need of money. In order to establish the said fact, he placed on record treatment record. On the other hand, the opposite parties have pleaded that they did not have the finances to refund the amount of all the applications and hence a seniority list had been prepared for refunding the amounts deposited by the applicants, who have invested amount for purchasing the flat by way of allotment. The name of the complainant stood at serial No.1351 for the year 2017. However, he had not been refunded any amount despite the fact that a period of more than two years had expired since then.

8.      Since, the opposite parties were not having possession of the land when it invited applications from the persons wanting to purchase the flat, their money could not have been kept by the opposite parties for a long period. The complainant is in dire need of money being a patient of cancer. The act of the opposite parties in not refunding the amount to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. As such, the opposite parties have been rightly held to refund the amount of Rs.3,93,000/- along with interest @ 12%; Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service; and, Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. No case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, in accordance with law.

 

 

Announced 29.06.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.