DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Complaint Case No.:455 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution  :  23.07.2010

Date   of   Decision  :  30.08.2011

Naresh S/o Sh.Hari Shankar, Resident of H.No.49, Phase-I, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. (Corporate Office), 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi

2]          Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. (Regional Office), SCO No.1098-1099, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh

3]       The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, SCO No.64-65, Sector 30, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                      PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                    MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU              MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.Dinesh Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Manish Bansal, Adv. proxy for Sh.H.S.Lalli, Adv. for OPs-1 & 2.

Sh.K.S.Arya, Adv. for OP-3

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1]             The lis between the parties has arisen due to alleged non-realization of a Demand Draft of Rs.15,000/-.

                Factually speaking, the complainant had applied for a Type-B Flat with OP-1 & 2 in response to an advertisement in the newspaper for Economically Weaker Sections in TDI City, Kharar Road, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab.  The date of draw of lots was not mentioned by the OPs.  A sum of Rs.15,000/- was deposited by the complainant by way of Demand Draft issued by State Bank o India (OP-3) with OPs No.1 & 2.  However, the complainant was informed by the Ops No.1 & 2 that his application would not be considered as the demand draft submitted by him had not been credited into their account.  The complainant visited OP-3 to enquire about the credit of the demand draft in favour of OPs No.1 and 2, he was clarified vide Certificate (Ann.C-4), dated 28.12.2009, to the following effect:-

“It is clarified that as per record available at the branch Draft NO.550503, Dt.15/6/09 for Rs.15000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) favg. Taneja Developers & Infr. Dev. Was presented by Union Bank of India, N.Delhi in Cla. And the same was paid by our New Delhi CLPC on 10.8/09.”

The complainant thus approached OP-2 with the said Certificate, but he was informed verbally that his application would not be considered in the draw of lots.  He has thus filed the instant complaint with the request that OPs be directed to pay compensation along with interest and also consider his application in the draw of lots, which was expected to be held in the month of June, 2010.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                OPs No.1 & 2 in their reply have submitted that the Bankers’ Draft issued by OP-3 was presented thrice to the bankers and the same was returned back each time being rejected on all the occasions.

                On merits, it is contended that the draw of lots has not yet been held.  However, as the demand draft was returned by the Banker’s of the complainant, the complainant was not liable for being considered in the draw of lots.  They have denied the contents of Para No.4 of the complaint regarding the certificate issued by the Bank for credit of the amount in their account at New Delhi Branch.  Further, OPs No.1 & 2 have submitted that the complainant was clearly informed that his claim would be considered only if he made payment of Rs.15000/- as stipulated in the claim.  They have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

                OP-3 in the reply have submitted that the said draft upon presentation through Union Bank of India for clearance was duly paid as per the Certificate issued by Op-3 (Ann.C-4).  Except issuance of said draft, OP-3 has nothing to do about the dispute as averred in the subject matter of the complaint.

                The dispute regarding the documents and non-receipt of amount is between the complainant and OPs No.1 & 2 and no relief has been claimed against OP-3.

                On merits, OP-3 has reiterated the above stand and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them. 

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]             As per affidavit of Sh.Sanyam Dudeja, placed at annexure, dated 24.3.2011, the draw of lots for the said scheme has not yet been held.  The demand draft issued by State Bank of India and presented to Union Bank of India, New Delhi had been rejected by the Bankers.  Even though the complainant was informed about rejection, he has not deposited any amount with OPs No.1 & 2. 

6]             The complainant has placed on record Ann.c-4, which is the certificate issued by State Bank of India, Sector 30 Branch, Chandigarh, certifying that the amount has been paid into the New Delhi Branch of Union Bank of India.  OP-3 has placed on record Remittance Enquiry where the amount was shown paid to Taneja Developers on 15.06.2009 (Ann. OP-3/1).

7]             It is evident from the perusal of the facts & circumstances above that the complainant is not being considered for allotment of flat advertised by Ops No.1 & 2 because the stipulated amount has not been credited to their account, whereas as per the certificate (Ann.C-4) as well as Remittance Enquiry (Ann.Op-3/1) issued by the complainant’s Banker, it is proved that the draft amount of Rs.15,000/- was duly credited into  the account of  OPs No.1 & 2. 

8]             Now that it is clear from the documents mentioned above that the amount of Rs.15,000/- has been received by the OPs No.1 & 2, we do not think they should refuse to consider the complainant for allotment of a flat in the EWS Scheme floated by them.  The complainant should be given the benefit of the application as he has not faulted in complying with any formalities for the scheme. We accordingly allow this complaint in favour of the complainant with the following direction to the complainant and OPs No.1 & 2:-

i)         OPs No.1 & 2 will jointly & severally allot a Flat to the complainant as per the scheme opted by him.

ii)        The complainant will pay all dues of the said flat, so allotted, as per the terms & conditions of the allotment.

iii)       OPs No.1 & 2 shall jointly & severally pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the harassment caused.  They will also pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.   

9]             However, the complaint qua OP-3 is dismissed as no cause of deficiency in service has been made out against them.

10]            The above order be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 2 jointly & severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.08.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER