Haryana

Ambala

CC/314/2018

Amar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager PNB - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2021

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                Complaint case No.:  314 of 2018.

                                                Date of Institution           :   25.09.2018.

                                                Date of decision    :    23.04.2021

 

Amar Nath Rangra S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Rangra R/o HNo. 11 Ambika Vihar Ambala Cantt-133001

                                                                   ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. The Chief Manager Punjab National Bank, Court Road Branch Ambala City.
2. The Chief Manager Punjab National Bank, Sector-7 Rohini, Nahapur, New Delhi.
3. The Director Finance, DDA, Vikas Sadan, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
4. The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India DDA Vikas Sadan, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
5. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Delhi-B North Regional Office Central Bank Building, 1^st floor 1398 Chandni Chowk Delhi-110006.
6. The Zonal Manager, Head Office Punjab National Bank Plot No. 4 Dawarka Sector 10, New Delhi.

                                                           ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Manish Kashyap, Adv. for complainant.

                   Shri Ashwani Nandra, Adv. for OPs No. 1, 2 & 6.

                   OP No. 3 proceeded against ex-parte.

                   Sh. Ankush Gupta, Adv. for OPs No. 4 & 5.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs. 1,51,137/- deducted from the account of the complainant
2. To pay the interest on the above said amount @ 18 % per annum w.e.f 13.07.2017,till the date of payment .
3. To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complianant.
4. To pay Rs. 33,000/- as litigation cost.

 

                             OR

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may                       deem fit.

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was serving in Punjab National Bank and retired on 30.06.2017, during the service period, complainant applied for a plot with Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as DDA) vide application No. 9775626 dated 24.12.2010. The OP No. 1 had paid the lum-sum amount for its respective bidders vide draft No. 407030 serial No. 21070239 to the DDA. The OP No. 1 had opened a loan account of the complainant bearing No. 325500PC00019213 and deducted interest in advance for the six months towards the loan amount. The allotment was to be done by the DDA through lottery system. Unfortunately complainant remained unsuccessful bidder and as per the terms and conditions of the DDA, the bid amount was to be refunded to the respective unsuccessful bidders by the OP No. 3. Complainant contacted the OPs No. 1 to 3, time and again for refund of the bid amount but of no avail. Complainant personally visited the OP No. 3 and it was told to him that the amount had already been refunded to the respective bidders through OP No. 4 and the OP No. 3 advised him to enquire from OP No. 1, 2 or 4. It is stated that the OP No. 2 issued a letter dated 24.07.2017 to the OPs No. 3, 4 & 5, with regard to refund of amount of Rs. 10,50,000/-, which was received by

 

OPs No. 4 & 5 but they did not acknowledge the same. Thereafter, complainant contacted OPs No. 4, 5 & 6, but they did not bother to take any action. Complainant was retired on 30.03.2017 and OP No. 1 & 2 on 13.07.2017 deducted Rs. 1,51,137/- from his account towards the settlement of Loan account of the complainant, despite the fact that the loan amount was to be refunded by the DDA. The OPs No. 1 & 2, illegally recovered the amount from the account of the complainant. Complainant contacted the opposite parties for redressal of his grievances and also issued notice/letters dated 09.02.2018 and 26.04.2018, but they did not bother to redress his grievance. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 28.05.2018 upon the OPs. The OP No. 3 asked about the status of refund from consultant of DDA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi to confirm the above said amount. The OP No. 2 has alleged that the OP No. 3 either had to allot the flat or refund the money to the applicants. The OP No. 3, vide letter dated 08.06.2018, replied that amount of unsuccessful bidders had already been refunded to the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan Branch, New Delhi, i.e. OP No. 4. The OP No. 4 replied that the amount was remitted to the OP No. 2. All the OPs are levelling allegations against each other but not providing the details of refund. By not refunding the amount of the complainant the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OPs No. 1, 2 & 6 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, no locus-standi, not coming to commission with clean hands, suppressing of true and material facts etc. On merit, it is stated that complainant applied for allotment of a flat with the DDA and paid the registration fee after taking a loan from  the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1, had paid the lump sum amount of all the respective bidders to the DDA through draft. It had opened the loan account of the complainant with his consent and made the payment to the DDA from the said loan account. OP No. 1, did not charge interest in advance for the six months from the loan account of the complainant. OP No. 1, had taken only Rs. 1,51,137/- from the complainant as per the terms and rules of Bank with his consent and answering OPs are not liable to refund any amount as alleged by the complainant. The amount, if any, has to be refunded to the complainant then it is the liability of the OPs No 3 to 5. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                 Upon notice, opposite party No. 3 failed to appear before this Commission and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.11.2018.

4.                 Upon notice OPs No. 4 & 5 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, mis-joinder joinder of the necessary party, no locus-standi, barred by limitation etc. On merit, it is stated that the answering OPs have worked according to the instructions of the DDA

 

 

and it had already refunded an amount of Rs. 199.29 Crore in lump sum of the unsuccessful applicants under the DDA Scheme to the Punjab National Bank, on different dates. The answering OPs has no liability towards the complainant to refund any amount. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-23 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No. 1, 2 & 6 tendered affidavit of Shri Ranbir Singh, Senior Manager, Branch PNB, Branch Court Road, Ambala City, as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/15 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No. 1, 2 & 6. The ld. counsel for the OPs No. 4 & 5 tendered affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha Branch Manager, Central bank of India, DDA Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi, 110023 Annexure OP4/A alongwith documents Annexure OP4/1 to OP4/10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No. 4 & 5.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs No. 4 & 5 has vehemently argued that, from the letter dated 08.06.2018 annexure C-16 it is quite clear that the complainant was declared unsuccessful in the draw held by the DDA on 18.04.2011. The grievance of the complainant is that, he has not received the refund of the registration amount deposited by him with the DDA, meaning thereby, cause of action accrued to the complainant on 18.04.2011 and as such as per Section 24-A of CP Act, 1986, he could have filed the complaint within two years from the date i.e. 18.04.2011, when the draw of lots was conducted, whereas he has filed the present complaint on 25.09.2018, i.e. after the expiry of more than 7 years, thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had deposited the registration fee with the DDA after obtaining the loan from the PNB bank. As per the scheme of the DDA, the registration money to unsuccessful applicants, was to be returned through the bank concerned, who issued the draft on behalf of applicants in favour of the DDA. The complainant had disclosed all the details of his bank, wherein the refund amount was to be credited. However, on 13.07.2017 the OP No. 1, had deduced an amount of Rs. 1,15,137/-, towards the settlement of the loan account from the account of the complainant, as such the cause of action arose on 13.07.2017. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 25.09.2018, i.e. well within the period of limitation of two years, as envisaged u/s Section 24-A of the CP Act. It may be stated here that in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. B.N. Raman 2004(3)CLT 260 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that for the first time on 15.10.1992, complainant came to know about definite stand of the bank. The period would start running the purpose of cause of action on 15.10.1992. Complaint was filed on 28.09.1994, it within two years as the two years expiring on 18.12.1994. In the present case, complainant came to know for the first time regarding non refund of registration fee on 13.07.2017 when the OP No.1 debited Rs. 1,51,137/- from the account of the complainant towards the settlement of loan which he has taken to pay the registration fee to the DDA. Further, in the case of Naraynan Kumar Khaitan & Ors Vs. Duncan Industries Ltd. 2009 (2) CLT 253, The Hon’ble State Consumer Commission West Bengal has held that so long as the society, company or the institutions does not make such payment the cause will be continuing one. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs No. 4 & 5 that the complaint is barred by limitation is not tenable, hence rejected. 

7.                       On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in order to purchase a flat under the scheme floated by the DDA, the complainant had taken a loan from the OP No.1 to deposit the registration money with the DDA. As per the housing scheme of the DDA, it had to return the registration money to the unsuccessful applicants/to the bank concerned, who issued the draft on behalf of the applicants, in favour of DDA. The complainant remained unsuccessful in the draw of the lots, thus, it was the duty of the DDA to credit the registration money in his account. However, the banker of the complainant i.e. OP No.1, had deduced an amount of Rs. 151137/- from his account towards the settlement of loan amount, which the complainant had taken for remittance of registration fee for the allotment of plot under DDA Scheme.  Thereafter, he approached all the OPs about the non refund of the registration amount paid to the DDA. The OP No. 1, 2 & 6 told him that the amount has already been refunded by the DDA. The OP No. 4 & 5 told him that they had paid lum sum amount of Rs. 199.29 crore of the unsuccessful applicants under the DDA Scheme to Punjab National Bank on different dates. Inspite of release of the payment by DDA, all the OPs instead the refunding the amount in his account are blaming each other as such all the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Due to the said act of the OPs, the complainant had suffered mental agony and physical harassment, therefore, the present complaint may kindly be allowed and OPs may be directed to refund the amount of registration fee alongwith interest. They may also be directed to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.   

                   The learned counsel for OPs No. 1, 2 & 6 has argued that the complainant was bound to refund the amount obtained by him in the shape of loan, and the Bank has rightly deducted an amount of Rs. 1,51,137/- from the account of complainant as per the terms and rules of the Bank with due consent of the complainant. The Ops No.1, 2 & 6 have not committed any deficiency in service.      

                   The learned counsel for the OPs No. 4 & 5 have argued that, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the OPs No. 4 & 5 were merely the banker of DDA and had worked accordingly as per the instructions of the DDA. The OPs No. 4 & 5 have remitted the lump sum amount of Rs.199.29 crore of the unsuccessful applicants under the DDA scheme, on different dates to the Punjab National Bank. Since the bank had already remitted the amount of the unsuccessful applicants, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant had applied for allotment of a flat under the DDA scheme, but he remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots. It is also admitted fact that the DDA had to remit the registration amount to the unsuccessful applicants through Central Bank of India. The plea of the complainant is that being the unsuccessful candidate, in the draw of lots conducted by the DDA, the amount of registration was to be credited by the OPs, in his bank account maintained with OP No.1, details of which had already been provided by him to the OPs. However, the OPs did not credit the said amount in his bank account and the OP No. 1 had illegally debited an amount of Rs. 151137/- from his account. The said act of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in rendering services to the complainant. The stand of the OPs No. 4 & 5 is that they had remitted Rs.199.29 crore to the OPs No. 1, 2 & 6 to refund the due amount to all the unsuccessful candidates, who applied for allotment of flat under the DDA scheme through them. From the statement of account Annexure OP 1/2  and details of RTGS received Annexure OP 1/1, it is evident that the Punjab National Bank has received Rs.199.29 crore through RTGS from Central Bank i.e. the Nodal Bank of DDA on different dates. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs No. 1, 2 & 6 has submitted that the Punjab National Bank has received the said amount and the same has been disbursed to the unsuccessful applicants. It is not out of place to mention here that the OPs No.1, 2 & 6 tried to evade their liability by saying that the amount received from the OPs No. 4 & 5 had already been disbursed to the unsuccessful candidates. However, they have not placed on record the list of the unsuccessful candidates to whom they have disbursed the said amount. They have not even place any document, which shows that necessary steps in the matter were taken regarding the disbursement of the amount of registration fee to the complainant. Even, the OPs No. 4 & 5 have also not placed on record the list of unsuccessful candidates, for whom, they had remitted the amount Rs.199.29 crore, to the PNB Bank i.e. OPs No.1, 2 & 6. In this situation, we do not hesitate to hold that it was only on account of deficiency revolving within the area of OPs No.1,2,4,5 & 6. Since, the fault lies upon the OPs No.1,2,4,5 & 6 and not on the part of the complainant, thus he cannot be make scapegoat for the deficiency in service committed by the said OPs. As such, we deem it fit to impose joint and several liability upon the said OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant. So far as deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 i.e. DDA is concerned, it is fairly admitted by the Central Bank that it is the banker of the DDA and it has worked according to the instructions of the DDA and whatever amount was received after, due compliance same was refunded to the PNB bank for disbursement to the concerned applicants. Meaning thereby the DDA had released the entire amount for refund of the amount to the unsuccessful applicants. Furthermore, no specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against the OP No.3 nor it has been proved as such we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant against OP No.3 is liable to the dismissed.

                   In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present compliant against OP No.3 and allow the same against OPs No. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 and direct them jointly & severally, to refund the registration amount to the complainant, which he had deposited with the DDA through Punjab national Bank. They shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance of the above said directions shall be made by them within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum on the awarded amount i.e. amount of registration fee and amount of compensation except litigation cost, from the date of order till its realization.   Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 23.04.2021

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President