Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 243.
Instituted on : 16.05.2019.
Decided on : 02.09.2020.
Puneet Yadav s/o Sh. Ganga Yadav R/o 1/29 Chankya Puri Behind Sheela Cinema c/o Sh.Hari Chand Hooda, Ex.MLA, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- State of Haryana through Collector Rohtak.
- The chief Revenue Officer, Housing Board, Haryana, Panchkula.
- Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, H.No.122, 1st Floor Subhash Nagar, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.O.P.Parmar, Advocate for complainant.
Ms. Anju Kataria ADA for opposite party no.1.
Sh.Dharmender Kamboj Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has applied for allotment of EWS flat for BPL family at Rohtak in the year 2018 and the complainant was assigned provisional registration number as 26/BPL/RTK/SHGB and final registration no.26. As per terms and conditions of registration, the complainant deposited Rs.70000/- on account of amount payable after draw of lots within 30 days from the issue of letter. The amount was to be remitted by the complainant through bank draft in favour of Housing Board Haryana payable at Panchkula/Chandigarh and further deposited Rs.70000/- as 2nd installment. There was policy for surrendering the house/flat. The complainant was not in a position to pay further installments. So the complainant submitted the application for cancellation of his flat and to refund the amount of Rs.140000/- deposited by him with opposite party No.2 & 3. But opposite party no.2 & 3 did not care for the application of complainant. Complainant served a legal notice to the opposite party No.2 and in reply to the same, opposite party no.2 sent a letter/Memo No.ABH/CRO/(PM)2018/1071 dated 01.03.2019 to complainant’s counsel and informed that the name of the complainant has been included in seniority list of 2018 and list will be uploaded on department website and refund will be made as per seniority list. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, the amount has not been refunded to the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.140000/- alongwith interest and compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss caused to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.06.2019 of this Forum. Later on the alleged exparte order was set aside vide order dated 05.11.2019 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that complainant by way of present complaint is seeking refund of the amount deposited by him toward registration of EWS type flat for BPL family at Rohtak. That the request of the complainant was accepted and his name has been included in the seniority list of refund by the answering respondent. It is essential to clarify that a large numbers of surrender/refund complaint amounting to several crores were received from the complaints of various scheme, therefore, it was decided by the Board that a seniority list of such complainants should be framed as the financial health of the board is fragile. The amount would be refunded to him as per the Housing Board regulations which were mentioned in the allotment letter and Housing Board Haryana Regulations, 1972, as per which it is submitted that: “In case of surrender of flats, 10% of the amount deposited with the application at the time of registration shall be forfeited to the Board and balance would be refunded to him without interest”. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on 02.12.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and thereafter failed to conclude their evidence and the evidence of opposite party No.2 & 3 was closed by the order dated 06.03.2020 of this Commission. Ld. ADA for opposite party no.1 made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 & 3 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.1 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully..
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per receipt Ex.C1, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.70000/- as registration money on dated 12.01.2018 and as per allotment letter dated 22.03.2018, he was allotted an EWS flat. Thereafter complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.70000/- on account of 2nd instalment, which is not denied by the opposite parties. Complainant moved an application Ex.C3 to the opposite parties for surrender of flat and refund of amount, which was received by opposite party no.3 and was referred to Head office for refund. The said application was forwarded to the opposite party no.3 vide letter Ex.C4 on dated 27.11.2018. A legal notice Ex.C7 was also served upon the opposite parties. In reply to the same, opposite party No.2 had replied vide letter Ex.C8 that the application of the complainant has been included in the seniority list of 2018 and will be refunded accordingly. On the other hand, opposite party No.3 has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and has submitted that the amount would be refunded to the complainant as per the Housing Board Haryana(Allotment Management and sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972. But the alleged regulations have not been placed on file. However, at the time of arguments, two documents were placed on record by the respondent counsel to prove that the refund is in process. We have perused document Annexure-JNB, in which the name of the complainant is mentioned at Sr. no.9459 and the amount is mentioned as Rs.35000/-(refund in process). We have also perused document Annexure-JNA written by the Revenue Officer(PM) Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula to Estate Manager Housing Board Haryana, Rohak vide letter no.HBH/CRO(PM)/2019/5810 dated 11.09.2019 in which it has been specifically mentioned that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.140000/- in two instalments. Meaning thereby it is well proved that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.140000/- with the opposite parties and the refund is under process. But it is also on record that the refund application was moved by the complainant in the year 2018. But till date no amount has been refunded to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such opposite parties are liable to refund the whole amount to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.2 & 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.140000/-(Rupees one lac forty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of their respective deposits till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.09.2020.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
