Haryana

Ambala

CC/53/2018

Smt Kailash Dham - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Sehgal

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  53 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   08.02.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   01.08.2019.

 

Smt. Kailash Dham, aged 61 years, wife of Shri Ashok Kumar, r/o H.No.238, Sector-1, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

                                                                                       ……. Complainant.

 

1.      Punjab National Bank, Court Road, Ambala City through its Branch       Manager.
2.      Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ambala City.
3.      Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Railway Road, Ambala City.

3(a)   Manager, Central Bank of India, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-    110023, through Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Railway     Road, Ambala City.

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri C.M. Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Ashwani Nandra, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.  

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) and prayed for the following relief:-

1. To direct the OPs No.3 & 3(a) to send the amount of Rs.50,000/- to OPs No.1 & 2, received by OP No.3(a) from DDA Delhi on 20.04.2011.
2. To direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to issue clearance certificate of loan.
3. To direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to remove the lien of Rs.50235/- upon her saving bank account maintained in Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ambala City.
4. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.48,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by her.
5. To direct the OPs to pay litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the Delhi Development Authority, Delhi floated a scheme DDA Housing Scheme 10, to allot 16,000 flats in Delhi to the applicants by way of draw. The scheme remained opened from 25.11.2010 to 24.12.2010 and the flats were already constructed and were ready for occupation. The complainant applied for allotment of flat under the said scheme. She applied for a draft of Rs.50,000/- to Punjab National Bank, Court Road, Ambala City i.e. OP No.1, in favour of DDA “Housing payable” at Delhi/New Delhi as per scheme and accordingly, the OP No.1 charged Rs.1720/- as advance interest on 24.12.2010 and issued the demand draft. The application and draft reached in the office of Delhi Development Authority, Delhi in time. The date of draw was fixed on 18.04.2011. Her name was not in the list of draw of lots of successful persons. As per the “DDA Housing Scheme” Para No.10, there is a provision for refund to unsuccessful applicants, which reads as under:-

                   DDA will refund the registration money through the Nodal branch as indicated in Annexure ‘B’ of the bank wherein all allottee had deposited the application form. The concerned bank shall be responsible for the dispatch of refund cheque to the unsuccessful applicants. The bank shall bear the responsibility for any loss.

                   As per the scheme, it was the duty of the DDA to return the registration money to unsuccessful applicants/to the bank concerned, who issued the draft in favour of DDA. She received a letter dated 23.02.2017 from OP No.1, calling upon her to deposit Rs.50,235/-, out of the availed limit advance of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days of this notice. The OP No.1 sent two letters dated 28.04.2017 on the same subject to her. To further harass her, another letter dated 28.04.2017 was sent to her calling upon her to appear before the recovery commission on 23.05.2017 for a compromise. On receipt of the letter, she visited the above said office in Model Town, Ambala City and told the concerned officer that the DDA had returned the amount to the bank and she is not responsible for return of any payment of Rs.50235/- + interest from the date of NPA. Inspite of that, she was again threatened by the OP No.1 vide letter dated 05.06.2017. Before the above said letter, the bank also put his lien on her personal bank account, which is running with OP No.1. The complainant used RTI Online dated 06.07.2017 of DDA Delhi regarding the refund of amount, but the DDA Delhi failed to reply the same. Thereafter online appeal was filed to DDA Authority, but no action was taken. The DDA Delhi sent the reply dated 24.11.2017 and 05.12.2017 informing that the refund of Rs.50,000/- sent to Central Bank of India on 20.04.2011 at bank Serial No.27164. The complainant again sent three letters to the OP No.3 under RTI on 11.12.2017, 15.01.2018, but the OP No.3 failed to reply the same. Inspite of refund by DDA Delhi on 24.04.2011, she is suffering unnecessarily as her saving bank account was attached upto Rs.50,235/-, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding cause of action and locus standi. On merits, it is stated that the present complaint against the OPs No1. & 2 is not maintainable, as after getting the loan for the remaining amount from the OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant applied for the allotment of a flat of Delhi Development Authority and since she remained unsuccessful candidate in the allotment, therefore, she was bound to refund the loan amount alongwith interest to them. As per Allotment Process of DDA, the unsuccessful candidates would be refunded the amount and the amount was to be refunded to the complainant through the OP No.3 and the complainant was legally bound to deposit the amount of loan with interest to the OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 has not committed any deficiency in service and thus, the complaint filed against them may be dismissed with costs.

                   Upon notice, OPs No.3, 3(a) appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi; time barred and bad for mis-joinder of necessary party. On merits, it is stated that OPs No.3, 3(a) had no liability towards the complainant to refund any amount. The OPs No.3, 3(a) had refunded the amount as per procedure to the unsuccessful applicants being the banker of DDA. The OPs No.3, 3(a) remitted the amount of Rs.199.29 crore in lump-sum to Punjab National Bank on different dates, of the unsuccessful applicants, under the DDA scheme. So, there is no deficiency on the part of their and complaint filed by the present complainant filed against them, may be dismissed with special costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Shri Ranbir Singh, Senior Manager, Branch PNB, Court Road, Ambala City, as Annexure OP1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2. The ld. counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Shri Vimal Narang, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, New Delhi as Annexure OPA alongwith documents Annexure OP1 to OP9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs No.3, 3(a) has vehemently argued that the DDA had conducted draw of lots on 18.04.2011. The grievance of the complainant is that she had not received the refund of registration amount deposited by her with the DDA, meaning thereby, cause of action accrued to her on 18.04.2011 and as such, as per Section 24-A of CP Act, she could have filed the complaint, within two years from the date i.e. 18.04.2011, when the draw of lots was conducted, whereas, she had filed the present complaint on 08.02.2018, after expiry of more than six years. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had deposited the registration fee with the DDA after obtaining the loan from the PNB bank. As per the scheme of the DDA, the registration money to unsuccessful applicants, was to be returned through the bank concerned, who issued the draft on behalf of applicants in favour of the DDA. The complainant had disclosed all the details of her bank wherein the refund amount was to be credited. However, the complainant received a letter dated 23.02.2017 from the OP No.1, from where she had taken the loan and deposited the application form to send it to the DDA, directing her to deposit Rs.50235/-, out of the availed limit advance of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days of the notice. As such, the cause of action arose on 23.02.2017 and the complainant has filed the present complaint on 08.02.2018 i.e. well within the period of limitation. It may be stated here that the cause of action has arisen to the complainant on 23.02.2017, when she came to know for the first time regarding non-refund of the registration fee on receiving a letter dated 23.02.2017 from the OP No.1 and she filed the present complaint against the OPs on 08.02.2018 i.e. well within the period of limitation of two years, as envisaged u/s Section 24A of the CP Act. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs No.3, 3(a) that the complaint is barred by limitation, is not tenable, hence rejected.

6.                On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in order to purchase a flat under the scheme floated by the DDA, the complainant had taken the loan of Rs.50,000/- from the OP No.1 to deposit the registration money with the DDA. As per the housing scheme of the DDA, it had to return the registration money to the unsuccessful applicants/to the bank concerned, who issued the draft on behalf of the applicants, in favour of DDA. The complainant remained unsuccessful in the draw of the lots, thus, it was the duty of the DDA to return the registration money either to her or to the concerned bank. However, she received a letter dated 23.02.2017 from PNB i.e. OP No.1, whereby, she was asked to deposit Rs.50,235/- for the availed limit advance of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days on receipt of the notice, failing which, the bank shall be entitled to exercise other rights, as available under the law. Thereafter, she received two letters dated 28.04.2017 on the same subject, vide which, she was asked to appear before the Recovery Commission on 23.05.2017 for compromise. On receipt of said letter, she visited the OP No.2 and told that the DDA had returned the amount to it through OPs No.3 & 3(a) and she is not responsible to pay Rs.50,235/-, as asked for. Inspite of no fault of her, the OP No.1 had put its lien on her personal bank account. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaints under RTI online several times. However, the DDA vide letters dated 24.11.2017 and 05.12.2017 informed her that refund of Rs.50,000/- sent to the Central Bank of India on 20.04.2011 at Bank Serial No.27164. Thereafter, the complainant sent three letters to the OP No.3 under RTI, but it did not reply the same. Inspite of release the payment by the DDA, the OPs did not refund the said amount to her and harassed her unnecessarily. Therefore, the present complaint may kindly be allowed and the relief sought for in the prayer clause of the complaint, may kindly be granted.

                   On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the complainant was bound to refund the amount obtained by her in the shape of loan. Thus, by sending the letter to the complainant for repayment of the loan amount, taken by her, the Ops No.1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service.                  

                    The learned counsel for the OPs No.3 & 3(a) has argued that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the OP No.3 & 3(a) was merely the banker of DDA and had worked accordingly as per the instructions of the DDA. The OP No.3 & 3(a) have remitted the amount of Rs.199.29 crore of the unsuccessful applicants under the DDA scheme under the DDA scheme on different dates. Since it had already remitted the amount of the unsuccessful applicants to the OPs No.1 & 2, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

7.                Admittedly, the complainant had applied for allotment of a flat under the DDA scheme, but she remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots. It is also admitted fact that the DDA had to remit the registration amount to the unsuccessful applicants through Central Bank of India. The plea of the complainant is that being the unsuccessful candidate in the draw of lots conducting by the DDA, the amount of registration was to be credited by the OPs in her bank account, details of which had already been provided by her. However, the OPs did not credit the said amount in her bank account. As such, the OPs committed deficiency in services. The stand of the OPs No.3, 3 (a) is that they had remitted Rs.199.29 crore to the OPs No.1 & 2 to refund the due amount to all the unsuccessful candidates, who applied for allotment of flat under the DDA scheme through them. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs No.1 & 2 tried to evade their liability by saying that the amount received from the OPs No.3, 3(a) had already been reimbursed to the unsuccessful candidates. However, neither the OPs No.3, 3(a) have produced the list of unsuccessful candidates, for whom, they had remitted the amount Rs.199.29 crore, to the PNB Bank i.e. OPs No.1 & 2, nor the OPs No.1 & 2 have placed on record any document, which shows that the necessary steps in the matter were taken as far as the case of reimbursement of the complainant is concerned. In this situation, we do not hesitate to hold that it was only on account of deficiency revolving within the area of all the OPs, as a result whereof, the complainant was harassed by OPs No.1 & 2 to repay the loan amount. The complainant would have definitely repaid the said loan amount, had the same been reimbursed by the OPs to her. As such, fault lies upon the OPs and not on the part of the complainant. She cannot be made scapegoat, for the deficiency in service committed by the OPs. As such, we deem it fit to impose joint and several liabilities upon the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs jointly & severally, either to deposit the loan amount directly to the bank concerned or to reimburse the same to the complainant, so that she can further deposit the said amount to the bank concerned. However, it is made clear that no interest/penalty shall be charged from the complainant, as there was no fault on her part. The OPs shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to issue clearance certificate to the complainant, with regard to the loan in question, and to remove the lien of Rs.50235/- upon saving account maintained by the complainant with the Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ambala City. The compliance of the above said directions shall be made by the OPs within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :01.08.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President