Amarjit Kaur, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Oriental Bank of Commerce & another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 2 on 5-1-2015 advertised in various newspapers regarding plots and SCFs in the scheme known as 27 Acres Development Scheme of BDA/PUDA and invited applications from general public. The forms were available at HDFC Bank and State Bank of Patiala at sall branches. The complainant being interested person got application and applied for two plots. She filed two applications i.e one at Abohar and the second at Fazilka. She got two drafts i.e No. 697521 and 697522 dated 2-2-2015 each for Rs.15,000/- i.e total Rs. 30,000/- and submitted applications for further submission to opposite party No. 2. The complainant was under bonafide belief that her applications might have been submitted by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2. The same will be considered in accordance with rules and procedure.
It is further pleaded that complainant did not receive any information from opposite party No. 2. She was under bonafide belief that she has not been successful in the draw conducted by opposite party No. 2 for the allotment of the plots, but she was surprised when she received a letter vide memo No. 4342 dated 27-06-2016 written by estate Officer, BDA, Bathinda. The complainant was informed that her applications were submitted by opposite party No.1 after about one year of the closing of the said scheme. Due to this reason, applications were not considered. The original applications and drafts were sent back to opposite. party No. l.
It is alleged that opposite party No.1 did not inform complainant regarding rejection of the applications by the opposite party No. 2 rather it came to her knowledge when she filed application for refund of earnest money.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complainant has claimed refund of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ of 18% P.A. from the date of deposit and Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages for negligence and carelessness.
It is also pleaded that application of the complainant could not be considered in the draw of the plots. She has suffered huge loss and opportunity of getting plot. The complainant has also claimed Rs.11000/- as costs of this forced litigation. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
The opposite party No. 1 in its separate written reply raised legal objections that opposite party No. 2 has dropped the scheme for allotment of plots at Abohar and Fazlika to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant has not suffered any loss. That the applications submitted by complainant could not be submitted to opposite party No. 2 inadvertently. The same remained with opposite party No.1 due to rush of work. The applications were traced out by the opposite party No.1. The same were sent to opposite party No. 2, but opposite party No. 2 returned back application forms of the complainant and informed opposite party No. 1 to refund the amount of the complainant to her. Since the schemes for allotment of plots have been dropped by the opposite party No. 2, the complainant has not suffered any loss. She is entitled to refund of the deposited amount with interest. The opposite party No.1 has always been and is still ready and willing to refund the same. That the opposite party No.1 is ready to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 30,000/- with interest. The opposite party no.1 issued two separate demand drafts No. 928083 dated 15-12-2016 for Rs.16,141/- and No.928087 dated 16.-2-2016 for Rs.16,142/- in the name of the complainant. The application alongwith demand drafts were given before this Forum on 21-12-2016 for handing over demand drafts to complainant. The complainant was not present and her counsel showed Inability to receive the demand drafts without prior instructions of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is still ready and willing to pay the deposited amount.
Further legal objections are that intricate questions of law and facts are involved. The same cannot decided in summary process of this Forum. The complainant may approach civil court and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. As such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. That the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It is liable to be dismissed with penalty of Rs.10,000/- as provided under the 'Act'.
On merits, it is not disputed that opposite party No. 2 advertised regarding scheme as revealed by the complainant and it is stated to be matter of record. It is admitted that applicants were to submit their applications with draft as revealed by the complainant and it is stated to be matter of record. It is admitted that complainant applied for two plots. Regarding further averments, the opposite party No. 1 has reiterated its stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
The opposite party No. 2 in its written reply also raised legal objections that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint against opposite party No. 2. The complainant never submitted any application with it. That the averments made in the complaint are contradictory, false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No. 2 and lastly that the complainant is not consumer of opposite party as defied under 'Act'. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, it is admitted that opposite party made an advertisement in newspaper regarding plots/SCF. It is further pleaded that opposite party received application for refund of the demand survey money got deposited by complainant though the original applications were not deposited/submitted with it. The application was referred to opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 26-5-2016 received much after the scheme was closed. The applications were never considered by opposite party No. 2. This was communicated by opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 2-6-2016. The complainant was also informed vide letter dated 27-6-2016 that the application was received approximately after l-1/2 years after the closure of scheme and was returned back. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
It is relevant to mention that during pendency of complaint, complainant accepted two demand drafts on 6-1-2017 from opposite party No. 1.
Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of her claim, complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 31-1-2017 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of draft (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-3), photocopy of advertisement (Ex. C-4) and closed the evidence.
In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Sardana (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of letter dated 6-12-2016 (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of account statement (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of demand drafts (Ex. OP-1/5 & Ex. OP-1/6) and closed the evidence.
The complainant has also submitted written arguments.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of complainant.
Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that opposite party No. 2 launched scheme for allotment of plots and invited applications. It is also not disputed that complainant submitted applications with opposite party No. 1 for onward transmission with opposite party No. 2. The complainant submitted applications within prescribed period. The opposite party No. 1 was duty bound to forward the same to opposite party No. 2 within stipulated period. The complainant has also placed on record copy of letter Ex. C-3 received from opposite party No. 2. Vide this application, complainant was intimated that her applications were received about one year after closure of the scheme. As such, her applications were not accepted. The complainant lost chance of getting plot but without any fault on her part. Of course the opposite party No. 1 refunded the principal amount with simple interest but complainant has suffered for a long period. She was also forced for this litigation. The complainant lost chance of getting plot. Therefore, she is entitled to compensation as claimed for i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to cost of litigation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has submitted that complainant has misconceived the facts. The complainant herself has placed on record copy of advertisement (Ex. C-4). Vide this advertisement, applications were demanded only for survey. It is also categorically mentioned under the rules and conditions that this advertisement will not give any right to the applicants for allotment and it is demand survey for limited purpose only. The opposite parties have also pleaded that the scheme has been withdrawn. Therefore, no loss has been suffered by the complainant. Of course there was delay in forwarding applications of the applicant but the complainant has already received refund with interest. As such, the complaint has become infructuous.
The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has submitted that it has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. The complainant has not availed the services of opposite party No. 2. The applications were submitted by complainant with opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 has caused delay in forwarding the same to opposite party No. 2. Therefore, the complaint against opposite party No. 2 be dismissed with special cost.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
It is admitted that opposite party No. 2 invited applications for demand survey with the purpose to establish Urban Estate. The complainant herself placed on record copy of advertisement (Ex. C-3). The rules and conditions are also briefed in this advertisement. It was made clear that this advertisement will not give any right of allotment to the applicants and this is demand survey only for limited purposes. It is further mentioned that after adequate demand, the establishment of Urban Estate will be considered. Therefore it is clear that advertisement was for limited purposes only to survey requirement of Urban Estate.
Of course the complainant submitted applications with opposite party No. 1 within prescribed period. The opposite party No. 1 has delayed in forwarding the same to opposite party No. 2. In this way, applications of the complainant couldnot be considered.The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for each application. Admittedly, the complainant has received this amount with interest from opposite party No. 1.
Now the point is whether the complaint has become infructuous only for the reason that complainant has accepted this amount. The complaint was filed on 9-11-2016. The complainant has placed on record copy of letter Ex. C-4 whereby opposite party No. 2 intimated the complainant regarding delay in receipt of her applications. As such, opposite party No. 1 has not taken any step to refund the amount of the complainant after receipt of this application which necessiated the complainant to approach this Forum. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to some amount of compensation and cost of this litigation.
In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of compensation to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced :
19-02-2018
(M.P.Singh Pahwa )
President
(Jarnail Singh )
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
