DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Amit Sharma s/o Sh. Parshotam Dass, resident of H.No.3191, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh.

                                                        ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    The Chandigarh Housing Board, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

[2]    State Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

[3]    State Bank of India, Nodal Branch, Sector 12, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

[4]    AXIS Bank, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

[5]    AXIS Bank, Head Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Manager. 

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh. R.K. Rana, Adv. for the Complainant, along with Complainant in person.

Sh. Manjit Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh. Jagdish Marwaha, Adv for OP No.1.

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Adv for OPs No.2 & 3.

OPs No.4 & 5 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.             The Complainant had made an application for allotment of a Flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme, 2008, floated by OP No.1. As per the advertisement, the Complainant was required to deposit earnest money of Rs.1,71,574/-. The amount was financed from OP No.2 and paid to OP No.1 on 29.04.2008. The interest amount on the said was deposited in advance by the Complainant with OP No.2. The Complainant had also provided certain signed blank cheques to OP No. 2 to cover for interest, in case the loan was not refunded in time.  There was a clear understanding that in case the Complainant remained unsuccessful, the money would be refunded by OP No.1 directly to OP No.2, within six months and OP No. 2 would charge interest for six months only from the Complainant.

                The Complainant has alleged that when he remained unsuccessful in draw of lots, the money was not refunded by OP No.1 in time and hence, OP No. 2 demanded interest on account of delay in refund by the Complainant. When the Complainant sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, he realized that the earnest money was refunded by OP No.1 to OP No.4, instead of OP No. 2. The Complainant, thus, took up the matter with OP No. 2, with the demand that he should not be made responsible for causing delay in the refund, as it was not due to any fault on his part.

                The Complainant has alleged that due to negligence and deficiency in service by OP No.1, he was being burdened with an unwanted liability of interest. He, therefore, served separate legal notices to all the OPs. In the notice to AXIS Bank, the Complainant demanded interest @18% p.a. on account of retaining earnest money, wrongly deposited by OP No.1 with it. The amount should have been deposited with OP No.2. AXIS Bank had replied that they had received funds from Chandigarh Housing Board (OP NO.1) on 13.08.2008 and the same was remitted to the State Bank of India on 23.08.2008. But due to the alleged fault of the OPs, the Complainant became a defaulter as per the records of the CIBIL also. The Complainant has attached the information received by him from OP No.1 under the RTI Act (Annex. C-3). As per this letter, the amount was refunded to OP No.4 on 13.08.2008. He has, therefore, filed the present complaint, alleging deficiency in service by all the OPs.   

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

3.              OP No.1, in reply, has stated that when the Complainant was unsuccessful in the preliminary draw of lots held on 30.7.2008, it had directed its Principal Bank namely AXIS Bank, vide letter dated 13.8.2008, to refund the earnest money to the unsuccessful applicants. A copy of this letter was also forwarded to State Bank of India, to whom the sponsorship authorization was given for the Housing Scheme.  As the relevant steps for refund were taken by OP No.1, within 30 days from the date of draw of lots, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

                On merits, OP No.1 has admitted the factual position about the draw of lots, but it has denied all claims and allegations of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              OPs No. 2 & 3 in their joint reply have maintained that the Complainant has sought relief against CIBIL, but has not made CIBIL a party. OPs have stated that they had already closed the loan account of the Complainant on 8.9.2010, much before the filing of the complaint on 03.01.2011. After the closing of the loan account, the Complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’.

                On merits, the OPs have submitted that the refund received from the Chandigarh Housing Board through AXIS Bank was appropriated towards the loan account of the Complainant on 16.06.2009. No cheque was ever misused by the OPs. This amount was received from AXIS Bank through its Nodal Branch on 16.6.2009, after the re-conciliation of the amount received from the AXIS Bank. Overdue interest of Rs.1234/- was recovered from the claimant on 17.10.2008 up to the date of receipt of the amount, as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement. No further amount was either charged or recovered from the Complainant. The loan account was kept open for re-conciliation, as there were number of other unsuccessful applicants, whose refund amount was received back. 

                The OPs have further submitted that the loan account was closed on 8.9.2010, after re-conciliation was done, without charging any further interest. OPs have stated that no loss has been caused to the Complainant. Otherwise also, they had applied and had taken up the matter with the CIBIL for the deletion of the name of the Complainant. They have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.              Initially, Sh. Gaurav Goel, Adv. appeared on behalf of OP No. 4, but he did not appear later on, nor any authorized agent appeared on behalf of OP No.4. So, OP No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2011.

6.              None appeared on behalf of OPs No.5 despite due service, so, it was were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.05.2011.

7.              Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

8.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9.              The dispute involves charging of interest of Rs.1234/- by State Bank of India from the Complainant due to delay in receipt of refund. The amount was received from the AXIS Bank. Another allegation by the Complainant is that his name has figured in the defaulters list of CIBIL.  CIBIL has not been made a party to the lis. Hence, no directions to CIBIL, for deletion of name, can be passed. 

10.            OPs No.2 & 3 have submitted that they have charged Rs.1234/- from the Complainant, as per the terms & conditions of agreement. It is not clear as to whether the delay, which led to the charging of aforesaid amount, is on behalf of the AXIS Bank or due to non-reconciliation of the account by State Bank of India.  The Complainant is definitely at no fault and the amount should not have been demanded from him, especially when the Chandigarh Housing Board (OP No.1) has refunded the amount through AXIS Bank, within a period of one month from the draw of lots. The resultant occurrence of the name of the Complainant, in CIBIL, is consequence of this delay. The Complainant was charged an overdue interest on delayed payment by OPs No.2 & 3, and is continuing to suffer with his name in the defaulters list of CIBIL, due to the unexplained controversy in date of payment between OPs No.2 to 5.

11.            In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to give a direction to State Bank of India (OPs No.2 & 3) to refund the amount of Rs.1234/- charged from the Complainant, due to alleged delay in receipt of refund. To our mind, the delay, if any, is caused either due to their own fault or by the AXIS Bank, who have already been proceeded against ex-parte and have, thus, not rebutted any of the claims of the Complainant. No fault or shortcoming can be attributed to the Complainant. However, OPs No.2 & 3 may settle this account with AXIS Bank, at their own level.  They shall also ensure that the name of the Complainant is deleted from the defaulters list of CIBIL. OPs No.2 to 5 shall also pay Rs.10,000/-, jointly and severally, to the Complainant for harassment, as well as costs of litigation.

12.            As there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, the complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.

13.            This order be complied with by OPs No.2 to 5, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the awarded amount @18% p.a. from the date of this order, till the actual date of realization.

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

Announced

30^th November 2011.                                                                   

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)