View 3921 Cases Against Housing Board
View 2956 Cases Against Haryana
Sunita Rani filed a consumer case on 01 Jan 2024 against The Chief Administrator Housing Board Haryana in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/214/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jan 2024.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint No. 214 of 2022
Date of instt.12.04.2022
Date of Decision:01.01.2024
Sunita Rani, age 55 years wife of Shri Surajbhan and daughter of Shri Phool Chand, resident of village Brass Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.
…….Complainant.
Versus
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.
Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member
Dr. Suman Singh……Member
Argued by: Shri Mukesh Singla, counsel for complainant.
Shri Naresh Kumar counsel for the OPs.
(Jaswant Singh, president)
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is permanent resident of the abovesaid address and is a poor person and belongs to a BPL category. The complainant applied online for a flat constructed by private builder in sector 112-113 Gurugram under BPL quota on dated 29.12.2019 according to advertisement of OPs and in pursuance of public notice dated 27.11.2019 and paid registration fee online of Rs.10,000/- through credit card of Nitin Jindal account no.6620101000293, IFSC code CNRB0006620 Canara bank, Karnal dated 30.12.2019 in the account of OPs. The complainant was successfully registered in their scheme and transaction ID of the complainant HBH36709 was generated. In the month of May 2019, complainant came to know that OPs have cancelled t he abovesaid draw of flats and returned the registration fee to all the registered applicants but OPs have not refunded the registration fee to the complainant. Complainant sent a written application to OPs alongwith affidavit/self declaration and photocopy of other necessary documents dated 24.09.2020, 23.10.2020, 17.11.2020 through registered post but there was no response from the OPs. The complainant contacted the OPs several times and requested to refund the amount but OPs did not pay the same till date. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 04.03.2021 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; barred by limitation; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OPs have cancelled the draw of flats. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Parties then led their respective evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of ration card Ex.C1, copy of newspaper advertisement Ex.C2, copy of applicant detail online Ex.C3, copy of registration Ex.C4, copy of application dated 24.09.2020 Ex.C5, copy postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of application dated 23.10.2020 Ex.C7, copy of self declaration Ex.C8, postal receipt Ex.C9, copy of application dated 17.11.2020 Ex.C10, copy of self declaration Ex.C11, postal receipt Ex.C12, copy of legal notice dated 04.03.2021 Ex.C13, postal receipts Ex.C14 and Ex.C15 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Partap Saini, Estate Manager Ex.OPW1/A and closed the evidence on 19.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.
6. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant applied online for a flat constructed by private builder in sector 112-113 Gurugram under BPL quota on dated 29.12.2019 and paid registration fee online of Rs.10,000/- dated 30.12.2019 in the account of OPs. The complainant was successfully registered in their scheme. In the month of May 2019, complainant came to know that OPs have cancelled the abovesaid draw of flats and have returned the registration fee to all the registered applicants but OPs have not refunded the registration fee to the complainant till date despite various requests telephonically as well as in written and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the contents of written version and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. OPs have alleged that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant had applied for flat constructed by private builder in sector 112-113, Gurugram and complaint should be filed at DCDRC, Gurugram and Housing Board Haryana, Gurugram has not been impleaded as a party to the present complaint.
10. The present complaint has been filed on 12.04.2022. The complainant resides at village Brass tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. Hence, as per Section 34(d) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 this Commission has jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.
11. Complainant has alleged that the draw of flat has been cancelled by the OPs but they have failed to refund the registration fee of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant till date. The onus to prove her version was relied upon the complainant. To prove her version, complainant has placed on file copy application Ex.C5 dated 24.09.2020, copy of application Ex.C7 dated 23.10.2020 and copy of application Ex.C10 dated 17.11.2020, vide which complainant requested the OP to refund the abovesaid registration fee. In rebuttal, neither OPs have placed on file any documentary evidence nor denied the version of the complainant. Hence, it has been proved on record that OPs had cancelled the draw of flats and failed to refund the registration fee of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the complainant. Thus, the said act of OPs by not refunding the registration fee amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
12. Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 30.12.2019 till its realization to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated:01.01.2024
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Suman Singh)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.