Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/844/2019

Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

State of haryana - Opp.Party(s)

Hitender Kumar Panwar

19 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.    844 of 2019

                                    DATE OF INSTITUTION:                 05.12.2019

                                                DATE OF ORDER:                            19.04.2024

 

Satpal son of Sh. Om Parkash R/o H.No.32/1, Dhani Charkhan, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani-127021.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. State of Haryana through Collector.
2. Chief Administrator,
3. Chief Revenue Officer (PM),
4. Executive Engineer (operations),
5. Official Clerk/Chief Accountant Officer,

Housing Board, Haryana, Plot No.C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula-134109, Haryana.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

Present:-         Sh. Hitender Kumar Panwar, Advocate for complainant.

            Sh. N.M. Sharma, Advocate for OPs No.2 to 5.

            OP No.1 given up vide order dated 05.07.2022.

 

ORDER:

 

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant applied for  BPL Flats invited by OPs through applications from 22.12.2014 to 21.01.2015. Complainant was successful in draw held on 29.11.2016 for allotment of the flat  at Sonipat Sector-26,26A,33 & 34. Certificate of registration was issued to complainant on depositing of Rs.46,000/- on 03.04.2017. As per complainant, he paid Rs.1,05,000/- (approx.) to the OPs alongwith bank interest and other charges as raised by OPs. However possession was not delivered to complainant rather it is told that OPs can give him possession  of flats in sector 71,18,60,8,63,35,19,10 at Sonipat. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer made for directions to OPs to pay Rs.20.00 lacs to complainant which includes Rs.1,05,000 + interest on it from the date of allotment @ 18% per annum, Rs. 5.00 lacs towards harassment, Rs.12.00 lac as loss of value of flat besides litigation expenss. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, may also be awarded.  

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant deposited the alleged amount(s) but he did not deposit the balance amount of flat and not took the possession as offered by OPs in other sector than the sector mentioned in the allotment letter as per terms and conditions of OP department. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence of complainant, affidavit Ex. CW1/A of complainant alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-11were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                     No evidence tendered on behalf of Ops despite availing sufficient opportunities.  As such, evidence of OPs was closed by Court vide order dated  26.02.2024.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record carefully.

6.                     It is admitted by the OPs in their pleadings that the alleged amounts were deposited by complainant towards the premiums of the flat. Furhter complainant not deposited the remaining amounts, and that OP offered flat to complainant in some other sector in Sonipat than mentioned in the allotment letter as per terms and conditions of OPs for which complainant denied. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the act & conduct of OP amount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its part which caused monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  In order to get his grievance redressed, complainant got served legal notice (Ex. C-1) upon the OPs and has placed on record the receipts of amount deposited by him towards the premiums etc. of the flat as Ex. C-7 to Ex.C-9 whereby it is clear that complainant has deposited Rs.1,03,150/-. Perusal of record reveals that the OPs neither gave possession of the flat nor return the deposited amount  before filing of this complaint nor during its procededings which show clear intent of OPs for not refunding the amount. The complainant to strengthen his case has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit which corroborates the version of the complaint.  In such a situation, we are of the view that the OPs were negligent, deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as has adopted unfair trade practice which dragged the complainant into this unwarranted litigation.  So, complainant must have suffered monetary loss as well as mental agony and physical harassment.  As such, the complaint is allowed and OPs No.2 to 5, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)        To refund Rs.1,03,150/- (Rs.One lac three thousand one hundred fifty) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amounts till its actual realization.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                        In case of default, the OPs no. 2 to 5 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.              

Announced.

Dated:19.04.2024