Haryana

StateCommission

A/1123/2017

HARYANA SHERI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RADHI - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN GUPTA

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1123 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 18.09.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 10.06.2022

 

1.      Haryana Sheri Vikas Pradhikaran, through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.      Estate Officer, Haryana Sheri Vikas Pradhikaran, Jagadhari (Haryana).

…..Appellants

Versus

1. Radhi W/o Late Ram Dhari R/o Village New Ratgal, opposite new Bus Stand, Kurukshetra.
2. Punjab National Bank, Thanesar, Distt Kurukshetra, opposite party Co-op Goel Bank Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Manager.

….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

                   None  for the respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 already ex parte.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant  applied for plot of three marlas in Urban Estate, Sector-18 (Part II), Jagadhri vide application No.136269 with opposite party (O.P.) No.1. The complainant deposited Rs.2691/- with OP NO.3-PNB Bank vide receipt dated 02.12.2005.  She requested the OP No.1 to disclose about the fate of draw of  three marlas plot, but, to no avail. She visited the office of OP NO.3-Bank  and asked them  about the amount, which was got deposited on 02.12.2005 in the account of the OP Nos.1 and 2 by the complainant. On account of negligence on the part of the Bank, the earnest money of the complainant was credited in account No.136268 which relates to District Faridabad instead of account NO.136269 of Jagadhri. Accordingly she filed complaint at District Forum, Kurukshtra, which was decided in her favour vide order dated 22.09.2010, but, the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the order and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 05.07.2012 in FA No.1650 of 2010 with the direction to file the present complaint before the Forum having proper territorial jurisdiction. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      O.P.No.3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.10.2012. The complaint was only resisted by the O.P Nos.1 and 2.-HUDA-appellants by filing a written version before the District Forum, alleging inter alia that  there was no scheme subsisting at the time of alleged application form for allotment of the plot in Urban Estate, Sector 18 Part II, Jagadhri Under  which Rs.2691/- could have been deposited alongwith request.  However there was a scheme for the allotment of plots in Jagadhri Sector 18 Part II of three marlas and 2 marlas and 10% earnest money of Rs.2370/- and Rs.1795/- respectively were to be deposited alongwith application form.  Further it was submitted that no alleged application form and an amount of Rs.2691/- was deposited by the complainant with OP No.1.  Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint,  jurisdiction, concealment the true and material facts etc. were also alleged and requested to dismiss the complaint.  On merits,  it was averred that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint just to harass the OPs. The complainant earlier also  had filed a complaint, which was allowed on 22.09.2010, but on appeal filed by OP No.1 and 2, the complaint of the complainant was ordered to be dismissed with liberty to approach the forum having proper jurisdiction. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (Now In short “District Commission”) partly allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.06.2017, which is as under:-

“Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, and to avoid further litigation between the parties as both the parties are facing litigation since 2007, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct, the OP No.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.2691/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the first complaint i.e. 18.10.2007 till its realization and further the OP No.1 and  2 are also directed to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.“

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps NO.1 and 2-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Tarun Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.  With his kind assistance the entire record of appeal including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      It is admitted by the complainant that the complainant applied for three marlas plot in Urban Estate, Sector 18 Part II Jagadhri  and deposited Rs.2691/- with the OP No.3. It is also not disputed that neither any plot was allotted to her nor even  the amount of Rs.2691/- was refunded.  It is also not disputed that vide the brochure/pamphlet published by HUDA, applications were invited for allotment of plots in various cities including Faridabad, Sector 56 and 56 A, Jagadhri Sector 18 part II and the earnest money of Rs.2370/- to be deposited for three marlas plot in Jagadhri Sector 18 Part II and Rs.2691/- was the application money for the plot in Faridabad Sector 56. The plea of the appellants was that vide letter dated 28.10.2016 issued by Punjab National Bank, an amount of Rs.2691/- plus interest of Rs.39/- was refunded to Smt. Radhi wife of Ram Dhari under order  NO.RFC 55993.   Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant was herself negligent at the time of submitting the application as she applied for  the plot of three marlas, Sector 18 Jagadhri whereas she deposited amount of Rs.2691/- instead of Rs.2370/-  as per Ex.R-2. As per letter dated 07.10.2016 from HUDA Faridabad to HUDA, Jagadhri  vide which the cheque No.55068 amounting to Rs.2691/- + Rs.39/- interest given to the unsuccessful applicants through PNB Sector 17 B Chandigarh. Since the complainant has been duly compensated by the OPs in the year 2016, so no further relief could be allowed to the complainant except to comply with the other reliefs also awarded and the interest.  Allegation of appellant regarding the complainant having already filed a complaint unsuccessfully has duly been considered and  dealt with at the first level as the said effort was frustrated due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and permission was granted to file a fresh complaint before the Forum having adequate jurisdiction.

8.      In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.12,557/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

10th  June, 2022     Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)