Haryana

StateCommission

A/725/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASWANT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

18 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      725 of 2015

Date of Institution:      03.09.2015

Date of Decision :      18.12.2015

 

 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Jaswant Singh son of late S. Gurbachan Singh, Resident of House no.54, Sector 32-A, L.B. Colony, Chandigarh.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Manish Kumar Rampal, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4^th March, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.263 of 2014.

2.      Since, the land of Gurbachan Singh (since deceased)-father of Jaswant Singh-complainant/respondent, was acquired vide award dated 17^th June, 1992 by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘HUDA’)-Opposite Party/appellant, under the policy of HUDA, the complainant was entitled for allotment of plot being oustee. Pursuance, to the advertisement inviting applications, the complainant also sent application on January 12^th, 2010 alongwith the requisite amount of Rs.1,82,000/- by way of demand draft  No.981939 dated 8^th January, 2010 (Annexure C-5). HUDA neither allotting plot not refunding the amount, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum seeking direction to HUDA to refund the amount deposited alongwith interest and compensation on account of deficiency in service.

3.      Notice of the complaint being served, HUDA did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23^rd January, 2015.

4.      On appraisal of the evidence of the complainant, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing HUDA as under:-

“a)     OP shall return the demand draft No.982939 dated 08.01.2010 amounting to Rs.1,82,000/- to the complainant, alongwith whatever charges are payable by the latter for the delay in the encashment thereof. If the issuing bank denies encashment, for one reason or the other, it shall be incumbent upon the OP to pay that amount in cash to the complainant.

b)      OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the above amount w.e.f. the date of receipt thereof in its office and till either the draft is encashed or the amount is paid by the OP to the complainant in cash.

c)      OP shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service as also for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

d)      OP shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.”

 5.     The only argument raised by the leaned counsel for HUDA is that since the application submitted by the complainant was beyond the date fixed inviting applications, therefore, he was not considered for allotment of plot and the draft was not got encashed.

6.      The contention appears to be not tenable. If the application was late, the HUDA should have returned the draft rejecting the application being barred by time. The HUDA retained the draft for more than four years and did not get it encashed nor returned it to the complainant for the reasons best known to them. Therefore the amount would be considered to have been lying with the HUDA. The District Forum rightly directed the HUDA to pay interest on the amount of demand draft. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 18.12.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL