Haryana

StateCommission

A/760/2014

Haryana Urban Devlopment Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suresh Kumar saini - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.760 of 2014

Date of Institution: 28.08.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 28.10.2016

 

1.      Haryana Urban Devlopment Authority, Rohtak Haryana through its Estate Officer, Rohtak.

2.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rewari Haryana through its Estate Officer.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Suresh Kumar saini S/o Shri Hukam Singh Saini near H.NO.467, Modhav Bhawan, opposite Shiv Mandir,Sector 12-A,Gurgaon.

2.      Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kannoud Gate Branch, Rewari through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sheetal Bindal, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   None for the respondent No.2.

 

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by complainant that he applied for plot of 8 marla in sector-5, HUDA Rohtak on 03.03.2012 vide application No.207428 after obtaining financial assistance of Rs.1,57,800/- from opposite party No.3. At that time, he paid interest for a period of six months to O.P.No.3. Draw of lots was held on 11.01.2013.  As there was delay in draw of lots, so O.P. No.3 demanded Rs.4320/- as interest amount, which was paid under protest on 04.01.2013.   They be directed to refund Rs.4320/- to him for  delayed period of three months.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate reply controverting his averments. O.P.Nos.1 and 2 alleged that  as per terms and conditions of brochure, HUDA paid interest @ 5.5% for the delayed period  to the concerned bank i.e. O.P.No.3 of Rs.2830/- for 119 days, so they were not liable to pay amount.

3.      In addition thereto O.P.No.3 alleged that plot was financed and interest was charged for six months. The draw of lots was held after the lapse of six months, he was asked to pay the interest amount for delayed period. The difference of amount was paid back to him through pay order. Thus there was no deficiency in service on it’s part.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari ( In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.06.2014 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is allowed by directing opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.4320/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.  The complainant is also allowed lump sum compensation and litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs.2200/-.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that O.P.No.1 caused delay of 119 days in draw of lots and due to that reason he was forced to pay the interest.  There was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and learned District Forum has rightly asked them to pay Rs.4320/-.

8.      This argument is devoid of any force.   Complainant obtained loan from O.P.No.3/Bank Oriental Bank of commerce.  His contract was with bank and not the appellants.  It was specifically mentioned in advertisement that in case of delay of draw of lots interest @ 5.5 will be paid. As they were dealing with the bank so appellant deposited interest on the delayed period with the bank.  If complainant was having any grouse then he should have approached the bank.  Learned district forum wrongly come to conclusion that there were deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1 qua the complainant.  So impugned order dated 11.06.2014 is set aside. Appeal is allowed. However it is directed that the bank should settle the account with complainant after adjusting the amount received  from HUDA because the bank cannot charge interest from both the persons.  With this observation appeal is disposed off.

 

October 28th, 2016                 Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                              Judicial Member                                            Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.