Haryana

StateCommission

RA/544/2015

Surender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No:   544 of 2015

First Appeal No      :  1181 of 2012

Date of Institution   :     11.10.2012    

Date of Decision     :     07.12.2015

 

Surender Singh s/o Sh. Raghbir Singh, Resident of Village Sardhana, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonipat.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      State Bank of India, Branch Ganaur, through its Manager.

2.      Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, through its Director (Gautam Budh Nagar UP).

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Mahender Singh, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22^nd August, 2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.289 of 2011.

2.      Surender Singh-complainant (appellant herein) filed complaint before the District Forum with the allegations that he applied for flat to Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority-Opposite Party No.2 by getting financed the earnest money of Rs.3,90,000/- from State Bank of India (SBI)-Opposite Party No.1. He deposited Rs.10,000/- as upfront charges with the SBI. Draw of lots was held on 24.01.2011. The complainant remained successful and he was allotted flat No.350A in Sector-XU-III at Greater Noida. According to the complainant, he visited the SBI but the bank officials did not disclose anything. Ultimately, he went to the opposite party No.2 on 28.03.2011 from where he came to know that he was successful and the last date for payment of the balance money was 28.03.2011 i.e. the day he visited the opposite party No.2. Since, he failed to pay the balance amount in time, he surrendered the flat and 50% of the deposited amount was refunded to him as per the terms and conditions of the application Annexure A-5.  The grievance of the complainant was that he was not informed by the bank about the allotment of flat and the schedule of balance payment due to which he suffered loss.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing their respective replies. It was stated that the result of the draw of lots was put on the website and also on notice board and therefore there was no need to inform the complainant. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum allowed complaint granting relief to the complainant as under:-

“In the present case, it is no where mentioned in the complaint about 50% amount in whose custody, but respondent No.2 in his reply has mentioned that Rs.1,95,000/- vide cheque No.199342 dated 12.7.2011 drawn on Bank of Baroda was sent to the complainant. The complainant has surrendered the plot on 28.3.2011 and cheque was sent on 12.7.2011 by respondent No.2 who is liable to give the interest on Rs195000/- at the rate of 18% per annum from 28.3.2011 till the amount was received actually by the complainant. The respondent No.1 is not liable to get any interest from the complainant on Rs.3,90,000/- because he does not do his duty sincerely. It is also directed to the complainant to pay Rs.3,90,000/- to respondent No.1 within 15 days. However, it is made clear that if the complainant has paid Rs.1,95,000/-, in that event, he will pay only Rs.1,95,000/- to respondent No.1.”

 5.     Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

6.      In this case the brochure/application form issued by Greater Noida/Industrial Development Authority-Opposite Party, Opposite Party, is an important document which shows payment plan and surrender policy. Clause F regarding payment is as under:-

          “F.     MODE OF PAYMENT

F-1    All payments to the Authority can be made in the form of Demand Draft/Pay Order drawn in favour of “Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority payable at New Delhi/Noida/Greater Noida”. The payments shall be accepted directly at the Bank branches authorized in allotment letter.

F-2    Normally, no extension in payments shall be allowed. If the amount payable to the Authority is not paid within the prescribed time limit, extension of time for such default period under exceptional circumstances may be allowed upto a maximum of 3 months subject to the condition that during the entire payment plan such extensions shall not be more than three times. In the event extensions, interest @ 15% per annum compoundable quarterly shall be payable on the defaulted amount for the defaulted period.

F-3    The payment made by allottee/lessee shall first be adjusted towards the interest due, if any, and thereafter the balance shall be adjusted towards the instalment due and the lease rent payable.”

Clause J regarding Surrender policy reads as under:-

          “J      SURRENDER

                   J-1    xxx

                   J-2    xxx

J-3    In case of surrender after 30 days of allotment but before 90 days (for Payment Plan B-5.1) and within 45 days of allotment (un-Payment Plan B 5.2), 50% of the registration money will be forfeited and balance amount shall be refunded without any interest. No separate notice shall be given for the same.”

          J-4    xxx

          J-5    xxx

          J-6    xxx

7.      It is not in dispute that in terms of Clause ‘F’ regarding mode of payment sub Clause 2, the complainant could seek extension of time upto three months for payment of the amount to the authority. It is also not disputed that the complainant surrendered the flat and got refund of 50% of the amount. The complainant has not been able to point out that it was the duty of the SBI to inform the complainant about the result of the draw. That being so, SBI-Opposite Party No.1 could not be found faulted with and no deficiency in service could be alleged against the bank.  The complainant has made statement that respondent No.2 i.e. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is only proforma and does not claim any relief against it.

8.      Even otherwise, the complainant could apply for extension of time but he did not opt for it, rather, surrendered the flat, besides it is specific plea of Greater Noida that the result was put up on website on the same day, therefore, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any negligence. The surrender of flat was a voluntary act of the complainant.  

9.      In view of the above, this Commission is of the view that relief granted to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation. The appeal therefore stands dismissed.

 

 

Announced 07.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL