BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurjeet Singh Chandhoke S/o Sh.Ranjeet Singh Chandhook, residence of House No.2110, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.  Punjab National Bank, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, through its authorized representative/Branch Manager.

2.  Punjab National Bank, NAC Manimajra  1183, UT, Chandigarh, through its authorized representative/Branch Manager.

3.  The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Sector 14, Gurgaon – 122001.

                              ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL         MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Varinder Arora, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwa, Proxy counsel for Sh.Sanjiv Ghai, Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2.

Sh.Raman Gaur, Counsel for OP NO.3.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

       Briefly stated, the complainant was allotted a House/Plot No.496, Category Residential (10 Marla) in Sector 1, PAT at Urban Estate, Pataudi, by HUDA. It is stated that the allotment letter issued in the name of complainant, dated 24.2.2011 was sent to OP Bank as it had financed the earnest money.  It is averred that in the said allotment letter, there was a direction to deposit an amount of Rs.3,01,321/- within a prescribed period of 30 days being the first installment, but due to casual attitude & behaviour of OP Bank, the intimation was not conveyed to the complainant, which attracted late payment and other charges to the tune of Rs.19,317/-. The complainant had to pay the said charges to OP NO.-3.  The matter was taken up with OP Bank through various requests as well as legal notice dated 6.4.2011 but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

2]       OPs No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply. The preliminary objection with regard to maintainability was raised. On merits, it has been pleaded that OP No.1 financed the earnest money on the request of the complainant and it deposited the whole amount on 24.2.2011. After receipt of the allotment letter, the complainant was informed to collect the allotment letter, but he visited the office of OP No.1 on 28.3.2011. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. It is pleaded that the late payment charges were not mentioned in the allotment letter. It is also pleaded that the OPs had granted the credit facility to the complainant and No Due Certificate was also issued in his favour, which would be evident from letter dated 28.3.2011. Rest of allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

3]       OP No.3 (HUDA) also filed the reply, stating therein, that the earnest money was financed by Punjab National Bank, Sector 37-D branch, Chandigarh, so the allotment letter was sent to the said bank vide letter dated 24.2.2011. The complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs.3,01,321/- within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter i.e. upto 25.3.2011, but as the amount was deposited only on 29.3.2011, hence the interest for the delayed period and surcharge were charged from the complainant as per the policy of HUDA. All other allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Proxy Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2, ld.Counsel for OP NO.3 and have also perused the record. 

6]       The contention of the complainant is that he was allotted a House/Plot NO.496, Category Residential (10 Marla), Sector-1, PAT at Urban Estate, Pataudi, by OP No.-3 (HUDA).  It is also contended that because the earnest money of said plot/house was got financed from OP Bank, therefore, the allotment letter for depositing the first installment of the said plot/house, was directly sent to the OP Bank by OP NO.3-HUDA, but due to its casual behaviour of OP Bank, the intimation was not conveyed to him, which attracted late payment charges of Rs.19,317/- besides other miscellaneous charges imposed by HUDA.

7]       The ld.Counsel for the OP NO.1 & 2 (Bank) has argued that after the receipt of allotment letter, the complainant was informed accordingly to collect it, for which he visited the Bank only on 28.3.2011 and therefore, there was no delay on the part of OP Bank.  

8]       On the other hand the ld.Counsel for OP No.3 –HUDA has argued that the demanded amount was to be deposited by 25.3.2011, but since it was deposited late by 29.3.2011, therefore, the interest for the delayed period as well as surcharges has been charged from the complainant, as per the policy of HUDA.

9]       We find merit in the contention of the ld.Counsel for the complainant.  The OP Bank itself admitted that the allotment letter of the complainant, dated 24.2.2011 was received by it from HUDA/OP NO.3. Annexure R-2, is the letter dated 15.3.2011, which shows that OP No.2 sent the allotment letter to OP NO.1, who financed the earnest amount of the complainant and thereafter, the allotment letter was ultimately given to the complainant on 28.3.2011, which is otherwise admitted.

10]      The contention of OP Bank that it had informed the complainant well in time to collect his allotment letter cannot be believed in the absence of any documentary proof.  Thus, it is proved that the complainant was never given any such intimation by the OP Bank, due to which late payment charges of Rs.19,317/- were imposed upon him by OP NO.3 and the same had been paid through demand draft at Page NO.13 to OP NO.3/HUDA. Therefore, it is proved that the OPs NO.1 & 2 remained deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant causing him financial loss as well as mentally & physical harassment.

11]      In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. Therefore, the same is accordingly allowed against OPs NO.1 & 2. The OPs NO.1 & 2 are directed to jointly & severally pay a sum of Rs.19,317/- to the complainant, which he had deposited with OP NO.3/HUDA as late payment charges and surcharge. The OPs NO.1 & 2 are also directed to jointly & severally pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-.

         This order be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it would be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.34,317/- (Rs.19,317/- + 15,000/-) along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 19.11.2011 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid.

12]      However, the complaint, qua OP NO.3/HUDA, stands dismissed.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.