Orissa

Cuttak

CC/10/2022

Prativa Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary,Odisha State Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.10/2022

Prativa Pradhan

W/O:Late Dhruba Charan Pradhan,

Qr. No.F-1/4,Barrage Colony,

Jagatpur,Dist:Cuttack-754021.                                                  ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Secretary,

Odisha State Housing Board,

Sachivalaya Marg,Bhubaneswar-751001.

 

2.       Assistant Housing Commissioner(Rural),

Sachivalaya Marg,Bhubaneswar-751001.                         ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    19.01.2022

Date of Order:   22.09.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 2:                 None.

.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                         

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that after going through the advertisement about the integrated social housing scheme of the O.Ps, the complainant intending to purchase a core house from the O.Ps from the aforesaid project under the HIG category, had purchased an application form on 3.1.12 by paying a sum of Rs.500/-.  The complainant with her husband had deposited a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- through Demand Draft drawn on S.B.I on 6.1.12 had also deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- in shape of Demand Draft towards the processing fees.  The said deposits were duly acknowledged by the O.Ps on 9.1.12.  The husband of the complainant had participated in the lottery system as made by the O.Ps and one HIG house bearing no.18 was allotted in favour of the complainant vide letter of the O.Ps dt.1.5.13.  In the said letter, the O.Ps had further demanded a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- as because the provisional cost of the said house was of Rs.16,40,000/-.  Subsequently, the husband of the complainant could not deposit the further demanded amount of the O.Ps towards the purchase of HIG core house and unfortunately on 26.9.20 the husband of the complainant had died.  It is for this, the complainant had made a representation to the O.Ps through her letter dt.1.12.20 in order to cancel the allotment of the house and refund the deposited amount since because her husband had died due to Covid-19 and she was financially not sound to pay the balance amount.  But surprisingly the O.Ps through their letter dt.11.2.21 had informed the complainant that due to non-payment of the cost of the allotted house, the same was cancelled and the EMD amount as deposited has been forfeited for which there is no question of refund.  According to the complainant, the O.Ps do not have any moral or legal right to forfeit the initial deposited money for her allotted HIG core house.  She has further stated in her complaint petition that the O.Ps have no where in their brochure mentioned in their terms and conditions that the entire amount is to be forfeited if the allottee withdraws from the scheme after allotment.  Thus, she being harassed mentally and physically had filed this case seeking refund of the deposited money to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from 6.1.12 till the total amount is quantified.  She has also claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her mental agony and harassment as caused to her by the O.Ps and has further claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/-  from the O.Ps towards her litigation expenses.  She has alleged that the act/omission of the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service and practice of unfair trade.

            She has filed copies of documents relating to the allotment of the HIG core house by the O.Ps, deposit of money etc for the core house.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps having not contested this case are set exparte.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            iii.        Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps had practised any unfair trade ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Points no.ii & iii.

            Points no.ii & iii are clubbed up together to be considered first here in this case.

            There is allegation from the side of the complainant that the EMD as deposited by her deceased husband was forfeited by the O.Ps which was communicated to her through their letter dt.11.2.21 vide Annexure-8.  While perusing the brochure copy of the Odisha State Housing Board as filed together with the complaint petition by the complainant, it is noticed at page no.19 under the heading of “refund/withdrawal/cancellation” that the EMD of the allottee where the allotment is cancelled due to default in subsequent payment of if the allottee requests for refund, the interest accrued @ 16% per annum as due amount till the order of cancellation date of receipt of refund of application respectively will be deducted from the deposited amount but no where it is mentioned there under the said heading that the total EMD amount is to be forfeited.  Thus, the letter of the O.Ps dt.11.2.21 appears to be arbitrarily made without proper application of mind which thereby signifies that infact the O.Ps were deficient in their service by forfeiting the deposited EMD amount of Rs.1,65,000/- as made by the deceased husband of the complainant and which also signifies the practice of unfair trade.  Accordingly these two issues are answered.

Issues no.i & iv.

            When the complainant could not subsequently deposit the balance amount that which was claimed by the O.Ps towards the allotted HIG core house in her favour, she has filed the complaint case before this Commission which appears to be maintainable and thus, the complainant is entitled to the benefits as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are jointly and severally found to be liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to refund the deposited EMD amount of  Rs.1,65,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per month with effect from 6.1.12 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the mental turpitude and harassment undergone by her due to the haste and arbitrary action of the O.Ps who are also to bear the litigation expenses of the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member