BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.,B.L., PRESIDENT
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,
Lady Member
Wednesday, the 26th day of May, 2010
CC. No. 65 of 2009
Between:
M.A. Hameed, S/o Gaffar, age 64 years,
Occupation: Retd., Govt. Employee,
R/o H. No. 10-1-153/1, Charvadan street,
Siddipet town, Medak District. ….. Complainant
And
1. The Vice-Chairman & Housing Commissioner,
A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.G. Road,
Hyderabad.
2. The Executive Engineer, Housing board,
Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad town & District.
3. The Chief Manager SBH Siddipet,
Opp: to RDO’s office,
Siddipet, Medak Dist. ....Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 18.05.2010 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri. Ananth Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri. B. Gouri Reddy, Advocate of opposite party No. 3, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. M. Narsimha Reddy, Male Member)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party No. 2 to register the house allotted to the complainant by giving specific time and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony, negligence of service and harassment of complainant and demanding the additional amounts etc., and to directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards collected the excess amount than the house costs and suffered the complainant for the payment of amount and opposite party No. 3 to pay the interest and compensation to the complainant.
1. The complainant is a retired government employee from Panchayath Raj department as office Superintendent. After retirement he wanted to get an independent house at Siddipet. He was attracted by the offer of opposite party No. 2 for the allotment of Independent houses at Siddipet. As per Notification dated 01.11.2001 he has applied for the allotment of house under form No. 1690 dated 04.12.2001. The opposite party No. 2 addressed a letter on 08.03.2002 intimating about the lot No. 187 to conduct Draw on 21.03.2002 at Siddipet for the selection of houses on 40% payment category at the initial stage. The opposite party No. 2 has issued a letter bearing No. 1690/MIG-II-SDPT/E4/EE-ZNB/2002 dated 22.03.2002 to the complainant stating that he was selected for the allotment of one house MIG-II phase IV at Siddipet on hire-purchase sale basis under 40% payment category as per the draw conducted on 21.03.2002. As per conditions of the opposite party the total cost of the house is Rs. 4,00,000/- and the complainant has paid 15% cost i.e., Rs. 55,000/- excluding E.M.D. amount within one month at S.B.H., Siddipet vide challan No. 58 dated 17.04.2002. In pursuance of letter opposite party No. 2 dated 11.10.2002, he has also paid 25% cost of house Rs.1,00,450/- vide challan No. 185 dated 10.01.2003 for Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 40,450/- vide challan No. 234, dated 06.05.2003. The above payments made under opposite party No. 2 account No. 1741. As such he has paid total amount Rs. 1,60,450/- upto 16.05.2003.
The complainant had to pay balance amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- for the registration of allotted house in installment basis. But the complainant with intention to get registration to own the house by paying lump sump amount, he applied for the bank loan at S.B.H. Siddipet for Rs. 2,00,000/- and same was sanctioned as per the tripartite agreement. The complainant has deposited Rs.40,000/- in the bank to the payment of Rs. 2,40,000/- in one lump sump to the opposite party No. 2. As per Bank procedure, the opposite party No. 3 issued Mail Transfer Advise M.T. No. 254612, Dated 20.06.2003 with covering letter addressed to the opposite party No. 2 and a copy addressed to the complainant. As per said Mail Transfer Advise the opposite party No. 2 entitled to receive the amount from the SBH., Vinayaka nagar Branch, Nizamabad immediately. The opposite party No. 2 has received the above mail transfer advise, but kept pending without drawingthe amount from the concerned bank the reasons best known to the officials of opposite party No. 2. Ever since the complainant has made several representations up to 01.03.2007 but the opposite party No. 2 could not respond due to gross negligence.
The opposite party No. 2 have admitted sending the Mail Transfer Advice in it’s letter bearing No. Lr.No. 40/MIG/II/SDPT/E4/EE/NZB/07, Dated: 16.03.2007 addressed to the Manager of S.B. H. Siddipet stating that he received the mail transfer advice M.T. No. 254612, Dt. 20.06.2003 for Rs. 2,40,000/- along with covering letter but not collected the amount under mail transfer advice sent by the SBH Siddipet on 20.06.2003. However after verification, the opposite party No. 2 has sent the said mail transfer advice to SBH Vinayak Nagar branch nizamabad for collection and credited the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- on 17.01.2007 in to their account. Surprisingly the opoiste party No. 2 demanded the SBH siddipet branch through a letter dated 16.03.2007 to pay interest amount for gap period of 42 months for the full satisfaction of slae consideration, since the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was with the bank till it was drawn by the opposite party No. 2 i.e. 17.01.2007. The complainant were of the no avail. There was a prolong correspondence between opposite party No. 2 and bank authorities i.e. opposite party No. 3 and Asst. General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad,. S.D. Road, Prakashnagar, Hyderabad. The opposite party No. 2 has expressed to register the house in favour of complainant, only after receiving the said interest amount.
Meanwhile the estimated cost of the house was revised from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 4,98,750/-. The difference cost and other charges worked out and demanded by the opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 1,48,750/- was also remitted by the complainant through challan into A/c No. 52089975014 of the opposite party No. 2 with a request letter to register the house at an early date. But the opposite party No. 2 has not pointed out about mail transfer advise of Rs.2,40,000/- sent by State Bank of Hyderabad, branch Siddipet. That the opposite party No. 3 given reply to the opposite party No. 2 on 21.03.2007 stating that being the opposite party NO. 2 kept the mail transfer advice bearing No. M.T. NO. 254612, dated. 20.06.2003 with him. As such responsibility lies on the opposite party No. 2 and advised to register the house immediately.
On 25.01.2008 the opposite party No. 2 sent another letter to the complainant demanding to pay Rs. 1,27,486/- towards balance sale price of the above said house. On 23.06.2008 the opposite party No. 2 issued another letter demanding to pay Rs. 98,900/- towards interest amount on above said Rs. 2,40,000/- @11.5% p.a. from 28.06.2003 to 16.01.2007. Then complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 85,862/- at SBH vinayak Nagar branch of Nizamabad on 21.11.2008 after consulting opposite party No. 2 and handed over the challan to the opposite party No. 2 with a letter requesting to register the house. But unfortunately the opposite party No. 2 is not given proper response and changing the amount from time to time without any valid reason.
Finally opposite party No. 2 issued another letter bearing No. Lr. No. 40/EE-NZB/2009/1180, dated 22.062009 demanding payment of Rs. 40,294/- towards installments as on 16.12.2008. The opposite party No. 2 also mentioned the last payment of Rs. 1,60,450/- upto 06.05.2003 towards 30% costs and Rs.1,48,865/- towards installments has on 29.03.2006 and Rs. 2,40,000/- on 21.12.2006. Total amount comes to Rs.5,49,315/-. Opposite party No. 2 demanded Rs.40,494/- but did not mentioned the payment made by the complainant on 21.11.2008 amounting to Rs.85,862/- bearing challan No. 52089975014 at SBH, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad. Oppoiste party No. 2 sent a final letter and the complainant was compelled to pay an amount of Rs. 85,862/- dated 21.11.2008. This amount may be returned to the complainant and to register the house in his favour without any delay.
Finally the complainant issued a legal notice on 15.07.2009 on the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 stating the above facts. But there was no response from them. Both are liable to compensate to the complainant. The complainant filed application on 04.12.2001. Since than he has made all efforts to get the own house. He availed the bank loan as stated above to get registration of house at early stage. Due to negligence of opposite party No. 2 and 3 all aims of complainant have been frustrated. He has paid more than the actual cost of the house but the opposite party No. 2 and 3 due to their gross negligence harassed the complainant has suffered a lot. He also felt very inconvenient by making a prolong correspondence with the opposite party No. 2 and 3 since last 7 years. As such the opposite party No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation and damages to the complainant towards mental agony, loss of energy, making correspondence and payment of amounts bearing interest thereon specifically after retirement which everybody expecting peaceful life. The complainant is demanding Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and mental agony and an other Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and negligence of opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3. Hence the complaint.
2. The complaint is resisted by the opposite party No. 2 by filing a version to the following effect:
At the out set the deny the allegations made by the complainant. But it is true that opposite party No. 2 intimated the complainant about the lot No. 187 conducted in Siddipet on 21.03.2002 moreover he was selected the allotment of one house under MIG-II, Phase-IV at Siddipet, on hire purchase sale, and as per the condition of the opposite party.
However the opposite party does not admit that the complainant had to pay a balance amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- for the registration of the house. Their contention is that he applied for bank loan at SBH, Siddipet for Rs.2,00,000/- with the intention to get the registration done by paying a lump sum. The complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- in the bank as per that tripartite agreement. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 denied to the allegations stated in paragraphs Nos. 3 to 14.
It is further submitted that A.P. Housing board allotted H.No. 40 MIG-II at Siddipet to the complainant. SBH, Siddipet Branch sanctioned loan to the allottee and sent mail transfer to A.P. Housing Board for Rs.2,40,000/- this was done according to the tripartite between allottee and bank. However the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. On 29.03.2006 when the allottee gave his representation for registration of House, the file was sent through Chief Account Officer, A.P. Housing Board for final verification. It was found that the said amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was not credited in to A.P. Housing Board Account. When an enquiry was made the bank stated that mail transfer advice should be sent to the bank for realization. Accordingly it was done and the amount was released on 17.01.2007.
The A.P. Housing Board has received the loan amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on 17.01.2007 as per the banks scroll of the SBH, Vinayak Nagar. There is a lapse of 42 months. The said amount was used by the bank and as such opposite party No. 3 has utilized the said amount from 20.06.2003 to 16.01.2007. Due to the negligence of opposite party No. 3, A.P. Housing Board account did not process the file for registration. But the bank collected interest from the allottee. As per the conditions of the tripartite agreement the house will be registered in favour of the allottee only after receipt of full amount and the registered document will be sent to the bank.
The A.P. Housing Board issued an other letter dated.30.04.2007 to the opposite party No. 3 and complainant stating that the mail transfer advise was informed to the opposite party No. 2 with a request to acknowledge the receipt of mail transfer but did not specifically indicate to send to the bank (opposite party No. 3) closed for registration. Had the sent a demand draft this office would have sent it to the bank immediately. The allottee it as liberty to pay by way of demand draft or by way of challan provided by the department. In this case the bank must sent the demand draft because the bank sanctioned the loan. But the bank issued a Money Transfer Advice, which is again the procedure of A.P. Housing Board. It is the duty and responsibility of the bank authorities to credit the loan amount to the A.P. Housing board account from bank to bank only under intimation to the allottee as well as A.P. Housing board. This amount was with the bank from 20.06.2003 to 17.01.2007 and the bank collected the installment from the allottee. But the allottee has to pay the interest portion for the delay period from 20.06.2003 to 17.01.2007 and after receipt of the amount the house will be registered.
A letter dated 23.06.2008 was sent to complainant and SBH. Siddipet stating that an interest amount of Rs. 98,900/- for the period 20.06.2003 to 16.01.2007 so as to complete registration. The allottee has to the pay the same.
The Money Transfer Advice submission does not amount to remittance of the amount in to A.P. Housing board account. The amount remained with the bank therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No. 2. This matter regarding the interest portion should be settled between the allottee and the bank. Whenever the allottee pays the amount A.P. Housing Board is ready to registered the house as per the terms and conditions. The complainant has violated the rules and regulation of the A.P. Housing Board and is not entitled to claim the compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages. They further submit that there is no negligence nor deficiency of service on their part. They have a very good reputation for giving prompt and efficient service to the public by way of constructing houses. The allegations by the complainant are vague and false. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the petition of the complaint with costs in the interest of justice.
3. The complaint is resisted by the opposite party No. 3 by filing a version to the following effect:
The allegations stated against the Bank in paragraphs No. 7 to 14 are not correct and denied, in fact the allegations are contrary to the facts mentioned in Para 5 of the complaint. The opposite party No. 2 himself admitted that the bank send the mail transfer advice vide its letter bearing No. Lr.No. 40/MIG/II/SDPT/E4/EE/NZB/07, Dated 16.03.2007 addressed to this bank stating that he received the Money Transfer Advice M.T. No. 254612, dated 20.06.2003 for 2,40,000/- along with covering letter but not collected the amount send by this bank. However after verification sent said mail transfer advice to SBH Vinayak nagar branch, Nizamabad for collection and credited the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- on 17.01.2007 in their account. The opposite party No. 2 should have return the M.T, to this bank immediately or presented the same to Vinayaka Nagar Branch instead of keeping it in their files for such a long period. Therefore the question of escaping the paying of interest amount does not arise. There is no part of this bank in sending mail transfer advice. It is the opposite party No. 2 on who’s negligence the delay was caused in crediting the amount.
The complainant paid entire outstanding on 01.07.2008 to the bank and his house loan amount is closed. Since the account is closed. There is no customary relationship exist with the bank before this forum. Therefore the provisions of consumer protection act are not applicable to this complainant. There is no cause of action to file a complaint against the bank. This bank has not caused any deficiency in service of fault putting loss of the complainant. The claim of compensation claimed against the bank on all counts are not correct and denied. It is exorbitant and out of all proportions. All the allegations made against this bank are imaginary and the same are made for the purpose of complaint.
4. Evidence affidavits of both parties filed. In order to prove the averments in the respective pleadings Exs. A1 to A35 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs. B1 to B4 is marked on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1and 2. Written argument filed by the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 filed a memo to treat as chief affidavit as written arguments. Arguments heard. Perused the records.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for claiming of excess amount and registration of the house to prove his case against the opposite parties?
Brief facts of the case:-
5. After careful perusal of records of complainant, counter and documents of the both parties before this forum. The contention of the complaint is that he is a retired Govt. Employee who was by attracted the notification dated 01.11.2001 and applied. He fulfilled all the formalities with in the stipulated period. The estimated cost of the house was Rs. 4 lakhs as on 21.03.2003. Further he stated that he paid Rs.2,40,000/- which was a loan amount applied to the SBH Siddipet. Same amount of Rs.2 lakhs sanctioned as per the tripartite agreement. Accordingly the SBH Bank issued Mail transfer advice bearing No. 254612 Dated 20.06.2003 with covering letter to op No. 2 and a copy extended to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 received the Money Transfer Advice but kept it pending without drawing the amount from the opposite party No. 3. The complainant made several representations from that day till encashment of the Money Transfer Advise surprisingly the opposite party No. 2 demanded that the SBH, Siddipet through a letter dated 16.03.2007 to pay interest amount for the period of 42 months for the full settlement of sale consideration. The opposite party No. 2 expressed to a desire register the house in favour of complainant only after receiving the said interest amount further contended that the complainant has paid total amount of Rs. 5,49,315/- instead of 4,00,000/-. The opposite party No. 2 has not mentioned the payment made by the complainant on 21.11.2008 vide bearing No. 52689975014 at SBH, Vinayak Nagar, Nizambad. The complaint paid more than the actual cost of the house, but opposite party No. 2 due to their gross negligence did not give proper response for the last 7 years.
The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 stated that it is true that conducted draw at siddipet and selected for allotment of MIG-II house. They accepting the bank loan and stipulated amounts. Where as Money Transfer Advise was not received from the opposite party No. 3 and it is found that there was a lap’s of 42 months to release the said amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- with held with the bank, the said amount is used by the bank from 20.06.2003 to 16.01.2007. The said amount was circulated in the account of A.P. Housing board as such there was delay on the part of the opposite party bank.
Due to the negligence of opposite party No. 3, A.P. Housing Board has not processed the file for registration. On the other hand the bank has collected interest from allottee. Moreover there is no provision in the regulation regarding Money Transfer Advise that is the duty and responsibility of the opposite party No. 3 authorities, to credit the loan amount to the A.P. Housing Board account. It is further submitted that regarding interest portion of the said amount is between allottee and bank, whenever the allottee paid the said amount A.P. Housing Board is ready to register the house as per the terms and conditions.
As per the version of the opposite party No. 3 they replied that the complaint is not maintainable under consumer protection act. The allegation against the opposite party No. 3 in para 9 to 14 are not correct and denied. Opposite party No. 2 him self admitted the bank sent the Money Transfer Advise on 20.06.2003 for Rs. 2,40,000/- along with the covering letter but did not collect the amount. Later on 17.01.2007 they credited Money Transfer Advise to the opposite party No. 2 account. There is no negligence on part of the Bank in sending the mail transfer advise. The complainant paid the entire outstanding due on 01.07.2008 to the bank and his house loan account is closed. Hence there is no relationship between complainant and no cause of action to file the complaint against the bank. The bank has not caused any deficiency of service.
From the facts stated above it appears that opposite parties accept the averments of the complaint, there is no dispute regarding the paid amount. The opposite party Nos 1 to 3 is submitted his versions regarding the Money transfer Advice No. 254612 dated 20.06.2003. Ex. A3 clearly shows that it was intimated to the opposite party No. 2 dated on 21.06.2003 by the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 issued letter to the complainant for balance mount of Rs. 1,48,865/-. The intimation was received by him on 29.03.2006. Ex. A19 shows that opposite party No. 3 is responsible to credit the loan amount to the opposite party No. 2. The out standing loan amount was with bank from 20.06.2003 to 17.01.2007. Moreover equated installments have been collected from the allottee. But this office received the loan amount Rs.2,40,000/- only on 17.01.2007, as per the bank scroll of SBH, vinayak nagar. It is found that there is a lapse of 42 months to release the amount to the opposite party No. 2. Therefore the bank opposite party No. 3 should bear the responsibility and pay the interest for the period of delay.
The opposite party No. 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw of Rs. 2,40,000/- there in deposit with the op no. 3 with accrued interest. The opposite party No. 3 should pay Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 2003 to 2007 to the opposite party NO. 2. The said amount was kept with and interest taken from the allottee. The amounts due from the opposite party No. 3 shall be paid within a period of one month. The opposite party No, 1 and 2 must register the house and compensate has per Ex. A24. According to the golden Jubilee offer which he lost out on. The complainant entered in to an agreement dated 11.10.2002 with opposite party No. 1 and 2 for the purchase of house and the house was agreed at Rs. 4,00,000/- which was to be paid in the manner set out in Ex. A13 of the agreement. The full settlement of the house was paid before 21.06.2003 and finally Rs. 85,862/- was paid on 21.11.2008. The complainant paid an extra amount of Rs. 1,48,865/- due to the revised costs by the A.P. Housing Board. The opposite party No. 2 alleges deficiency of service and that there was delay in making payment of the balance amount by the complainant. Delay in making payment of the balance amount by the complainant is unsustainable, the opposite party No. 2 fails to see Money Transfer Advice immediately after loan is sanctioned. Therefore the opposite party No. 1 and 2 did not register the house. There is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 under this non registry of the house. It would have definitely caused mental agony to the complainant. As per the above circumstances opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has done gross negligence upon the complainant. The complainant has proved the negligence up on the opposite parties for non registration of house and op no. 3 for Money Transfer Advise. Agreement, relaying upon Apex Court judgment where in a complainant has paid the full amount agreed upon and there was delay in delivery of the car the dealer/ company cannot demand the excess amount there of because of increase in the price of the car mean while 2(1999) CPJ 44(SC). Hence the complaint is allowed with costs.
6. In the result the complaint is allowed. Directing the opposite party No. 3 to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 20.06.2003 to 17.01.2007 and the opposite party Nos.1 &2 to register the house and refund the excess amount paid by the complainant for Rs.1,36,000/- with interest 9% p. a. from 29.03.2006 to till realization and also pay cost of litigation Rs. 5,000/-. The order shall be comply with in one month time from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 26th day of May, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER
Sd/-
MALE MEMBER
Copy to
- The Complainant
- The Opposite party
- Spare copy Copy delivered to the complainant
Opp.Parties On _________
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
