Haryana

StateCommission

RA/739/2015

The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saluchi Devi - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No:    739 of 2015

          First Appeal No.1394/2011

Date of Institution:04.10.2011/2015

Date of Decision: 20.01.2016

 

The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited, Bays No.49-52, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Saluchi Devi wife of Amar Singh, Resident of Ward No.7, Nahan Road, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      The Shiv Co-Operative House Building Society Limited Raipur Viran, Naraingarh, District Ambala through its Secretary.

3.      The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society Limited, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                             Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

Shri Harish Kumar-representative for respondent No.2.

Shri Sandeep Kumar-representative for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited (for short ‘HOUSEFED’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated August 26^th, 2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the opposite parties were directed to settle the loan account of Saluchi Devi-complainant, by charging interest at the rate of 10% per annum; to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation on account of mental agony/harassment etcetera and Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses.

2.      Saluchi Devi-Complainant/respondent No.1, had taken loan of Rs.60,000/- for construction of house, from the HOUSEFED through Shiv Co-Operative House Building Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’)-Opposite Party No.3. The dispute was with respect to the payment made by her towards the loan amount.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same was accepted by the District Forum by issuing direction as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order. Against the said order, HOUSEFED filed First Appeal No.1394 of 2011 before this Commission which was accepted vide order dated November 9^th, 2012, on the ground the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   

4.      Aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the complainant filed Revision Petition No.1929 of 2012 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.  Vide order dated August 19^th, 2015 Hon’ble National Commission allowed revision petition and remanded the case to this Commission to decide it afresh on merits.

5.      Shri Pardeep Solath, learned counsel for HOUSEFED assisted by Harish Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, representatives of opposite parties No.2 and 3, has urged that the entire amount under the scheme of one time settlement has been paid by the complainant. No Dues Certificate has also been issued by the Society to the complainant and the Tehsildar, Naraingarh has been asked to redeem the property which was mortgaged with the HOUSEFED.  Letter Annexure-A in this respect has been relied upon.  

6.      Annexure-A is the copy of letter written by HOUSEFED to the President/Secretary of the Society directing them to hand over the original documents to Saluchi-complainant. Amar Singh-husband of the complainant, has made endorsement on it that the entire loan amount has been paid and all the documents be handed over to him.

7.      In view of the above, it is held that there is no outstanding amount due towards the complainant and as such the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 20.01.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL