BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.
Complaint No. 792 of 2019
Date of Instt.: 24.9.2019
Date of Decision: 1.4.2021
Anita Sharma wife of Shri Surender Kumar Vats R/o H. No. 121, Jagat Colony, Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana).
…………….Complainant.
Versus
- The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhiwani-127021.
- The Estate Officer, Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran, formerly HUDA Sector 9/9A, Bahadurgarh-124507, District Jhajjar (Haryana).
- The Estate Officer, Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran, formerly HUDA, HUDA City Centre, Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana).
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986
Before: Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Argued by: Sh. M.C. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. M.L. Sardana, Adv. for OP No.1.
Sh. Ganesh Bansal, Adv. for OP Nos. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the opposite party No. 1 forwarded the application No. 0810005704 of complainant to the opposite party No. 2 on 20.10.2016 under scheme No. SC00000081 for 8 marla plot, residential category in Sector-10, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Bahadurgarh and advanced loan of Rs. 2,60,000/-vide A/c No. 36243264450. It is averred that the OP No.1 paid the said amount on behalf of complainant as security/earnest money along with the application. It is averred that for sending the application, the OP No.1 dishonestly, arbitrarily charged Rs. 9150/-as interest for six months in advance and Rs. 500/-as documentation charges on 20.10.2016. The complainant was illegally required to give one signed blank cheque that was later on missed by the OP No. 1. It is averred that after laps of six months and draw of lots, the OP No. 2 dishonestly misused the un-serial blank cheque to charge a sum of Rs. 6990/-on 18.7.2018. In this way, the OP No.1 has indulged not only in unfair trade practice but also in deficiency in service, failing to provide safe and sound banking service by charging interest of Rs. 6990/-which was not payable by the complainant. The OP No.1 also got served a notice through an Advocate for payment of Rs. 6972/-inclusive of interest w.e.f. 1.7.2018 which was received by the complainant on 14.7.2018. It is averred that after deduction of interest from the complainant’s account by misuse of blank cheque, the complainant got served notice to OPs vide letter dated 6.8.2018 & 21.6.2019 but the same have not been replied till date. It is requested by the complainant in the present complaint that the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 6990/-charged as interest, along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Forum (now Commission) deems fit and proper.
2. Upon notice, the respondents appeared. The respondent No. 1 filed its separate written statement whereas the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed their joint written statement. In the preliminary objections of written statement of respondent No.1, it is averred that the complainant was granted loan of Rs. 2,59,500/-for earnest money for allotment of plot in sector-10 Bahadurgarh by State Bank of India, Clock Tower, Bhiwani after execution of necessary loan documents. A sum of Rs. 12,115/-was got deposited in loan account of complainant on 17.11.2016 as tentative interest for six months. The complainant issued post dated cheque in favour of SBI, C.T., Bhiwani. It is averred that the complainant remained unsuccessful in draw of plots applied by complainant and hence, after applying interest as per terms of agreement, a sum of Rs. 2,66,682/-was due and recoverable from the complainant on 31.7.2017. It is averred that a sum of Rs. 2,60,556/-was received from HUDA/HSVP which was credited in the loan account of complainant on 1.8.2017. In this way, a sum of Rs. 6126/-was recoverable from complainant and hence, a legal notice to deposit sum of Rs. 6972/-along with interest w.e.f. 1.7.2018 was served which was received by the complainant. The complainant issued cheque of Rs. 6995/-and the said amount was withdrawn from the account of complainant and credited in the loan account of complainant. The amount was recovered legally and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The respondent No. 1 took many other preliminary objections of no jurisdiction, complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, complainant is not the consumer etc. On merits, it is replied by the respondent No. 1 that the complainant was advanced a loan of Rs. 2,59,500/-for earnest money and that a sum of Rs. 12,115/-was got deposited in loan account of complainant on 17.11.2016 and reiterated the other version taken in the preliminary objections of the reply and denied the other allegations of complainant in toto. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the respondent No.1.
The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in their written statement have taken some preliminary objections, such as, the present complaint is wrong, baseless, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, the present complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it is averred that as per condition of the scheme of HUDA/HSVP “interest @ 5.5 p.a. on the amount of earnest money for the period beyond six months of the closing of the scheme shall be paid by HUDA, if the draw is not held and subsequently earnest money is not refunded within a period of six months from the date of closing of the scheme.” As per above scheme of HUDA/HSVP, the draw was held on 4.5.2017 for allotmet of plot but the complainant was not allotted any plot. Therefore, HUDA/HSVP returned/transferred the deposited earnest money of Rs. 2,59,500/-along with interest @ 5.5 p.a. interest i.e. total Rs. 2,60,556/-in the loan account of complainant lying in the branch of SBI, Clock Tower, Bhiwani. It is averred that now no amount of complainant is due towards HUDA/HSVP. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought qua the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
3. The counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence some documents and closed his evidence on dated 6.3.2020.
On the other hand, the counsel for OP Nos. 2 & 3 tendered into evidence documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 and closed the evidence on 15.10.2020. The counsel for OP No. 1 also closed his evidence on 19.11.2020 after tendering into evidence documents Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-9.
Written arguments have also been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant on 7.1.2021 and by the respondent No. 1 on 19.2.2021.
4. After perusal of the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel of complainant and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, we have also heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of written statements filed by respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 respectively and further drawn the attention of this Forum/Commission towards the documents placed on record by the respective parties.
5. We have perused the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. After hearing arguments and going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that the closing date of the form was 21.10.2016 and thereafter an amount of Rs.1056/- has been paid by the respondent No. 2 & 3 on account of interest for 27 days to the complainant, which is shown in Annexure R-3. In fact as per condition no.vi of application Annexure-RI, "Interest @ 5.5 per annum on the amount of earnest money for the period beyond six months of the closing of the scheme shall be paid by HUDA, if the draw is not held and subsequently earnest money is not refunded within a period of six months from the date of closing of the scheme".
The bare perusal of the above condition itself shows that beyond 6 months of closing of the scheme, the interest @ 5.5% has to be paid by the respondent no.2 & 3 to the complainant but in fact, as per Annexure-R3 only 27 days interest has been paid. In this way, the calculation itself shows that closing date of the process was 21.10.2016 and after considering beyond 6 months, the date comes 20.04.2017. The interest was paid on 01.08.2017 only for 27 days. In fact 101 days interest (20.04.2017 to 01.08.17) should be paid by the opposite party No.2 & 3 to the complainant, which comes to Rs.3956/- but the opposite party No.2 & 3 has only paid Rs.797/- to the complainant. Hence, the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are liable to pay the remaining amount of interest to the complainant
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is allowed and opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2900/- (3956/- less Rs.1056/-) i.e. (Rupees two thousand nine hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 01.08.2017 to till its realization to the complainant. Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The above order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance
Announced in open Commission
Dated: - 1.4.2021
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
