Haryana

StateCommission

A/683/2015

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR DAIMA - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KUMAR

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No: 683 & 717 of 2015

Date of Institution: 19.08.2015 & 01.09.2015

Date of Decision: 19.02.2016

 

Appeal No.683 of 2015

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul

 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Sunil Kumar Daima s/o Sh. Dalbir Singh, Resident of Village Bachod, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, now posted as Teacher in Campus School, CCSAHU, Hisar.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      The Estate Officer, Sector-1, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

3.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula.

Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

Appeal No.717 of 2015

Sunil Kumar Daima s/o Sh. Dalbir Singh, Resident of Village Bachod, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, now posted as Teacher in Campus School, CCSAHU, Hisar.

Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul.

Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:              Shri Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Oriental Bank of Commerce.

                             Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for Sunil Kumar Daima-complainant.

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.683 and 717 of 2015 having arisen out of the order dated July 17^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.79 of 2013.

2.      Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)-Opposite party No.3, floated plots in the urban area of Rewari. Sunil Kumar Daima-Complainant, submitted application for allotment of a plot admeasuring 8 Marlas, in Sector-19, Rewari. The earnest money was got financed from Oriental Bank of Commerce (O.B.C.)-Opposite Party No.1, by advancing loan to the complainant. The bank was to forward application to HUDA. The bank failing to forward the application to the HUDA, the complainant alleging deficiency in service, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Initially HUDA was made party but later on it was deleted from the array of the opposite parties.

4.      The O.B.C. by filing reply admitted that the complainant had submitted application and deposited Rs.6650/- as interest on the earnest money for allotment of 8 Marlas plot in Sector-19, Rewari. It was stated that the application alongwith money could not be sent by the bank to the HUDA in excel sheet because number of forms of different applicants of different categories plots were submitted.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated July 17^th, 2015, accepted complaint and directed the opposite party No.1 – O.B.C. as under:-

          “1.     To pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

2.      To deposit Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid account of this District Forum.

3.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charged to the complainant.

4.      To refund the deposited amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation.”

6.      Aggrieved of the order, the opposite party No.1 – O.B.C. has filed appeal No.683 of 2015 for setting aside the impugned order and the complainant filed appeal No.717 of 2015, seeking enhancement of compensation.

7.      Indisputably, the role of the O.B.C. was to finance the amount of earnest money and to forward the application to HUDA. The bank has no authority to allot any plot. The complainant for the reasons best known to him deleted the names of The Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari and HUDA, Panchkula, from the array of the opposite parties. The compensation which has already been awarded to the complainant is sufficient. The complainant cannot be allotted plot as a matter of right merely by submitting application.

8.      The argument raised on behalf of the appellant-Bank was that under the agreement with HUDA, the bank was to forward the names of applicants on ‘excel sheet’ and HUDA was to display the data on website and fault, if any, was on the part of HUDA in not giving proper information.

9.      Since, there is admission by the bank that it did not forward the application, therefore, it cannot shift the liability to HUDA for their inaction. In view of this, the appellant-bank cannot be absolved from the liability and the direction issued by the District Forum.

10.    So far as the appeal filed by complainant, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the amount awarded to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

11.    Hence, both these appeals are dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.683 of 2015, be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 19.02.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL