State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Haryana State Co-Operative Housing ... vs 1. Hukam Chand Son Of Surta Ram R/O ... on 1 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 275 of 2009 Date of Institution: 17.02.2009 Date of Decision: 01.10.2012 The Haryana State Co-operative Housing federation Ltd. Bays No.49-52, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Managing Director. Appellant OP-1) Versus 1. Hukam Chand son of Surta Ram r/o Opposite Sawan Palace, Chandigarh Road, Tohana District Fatehabad. Respondent (Complainant) 2. The Tohana Naveen Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Tohana District Fatehabad through its President/Secretary. Respondent (OP-3) 3. The Tohana Vishal Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Tohana District Fatehabad through its President/Secretary Respondents (OP-2) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for appellant. Shri Johan Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 and 3 are exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.01.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Fatehabad whereby complaint filed by complainant (respondent No.1 herein) against the appellant-opposite parties was accepted and following directions were issued:-
.we accepted the complaint of the complainant with cost of Rs.500/- and direct the Ops No.1 & 3, who are jointly and severely liable, to refund a sum of Rs.28,000/- to the complainant which was got deposited from the complainant in excess. Compliance of the order be made within a period of one month, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest on the sum of Rs.28,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of order till payment.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd. Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) borrows loan from Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay. The Federation further advances the loan to the Primary co-operative House Building Societies in the Haryana State and the Cooperative Societies further advances the loan to their members for construction of dwelling units. The loan is repayable in 80 quarterly equated instalments in 20 years with interest. In case of default of payment of the quarterly equated instalments, the loanee member is required to pay the penal interest @ 2 % on the instalment amount in addition to normal rate of interest i.e. in default of payment of instalment, the loanee was liable to pay 15%+2.5%=17.5% interest on the instalment amount due as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the mortgage deed executed between the parties.
Hukam Chand-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) had obtained a loan of Rs.75,000/- from opposite party No.2 for the construction of house which was disbursed to the complainant in three instalments dated 15.03.1986 of Rs.22,500/-, dated 29.04.1986 of Rs.30,000/-, dated 29.05.1986 of Rs.22,500/-.
According to the complainant he deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 11.9.1987, Rs.10,000/- on 7.11.1991, Rs.6,000/- on 2.6.1993, Rs.10,000/- on 3.1.1994, Rs.7,000/- on 5.1.1994, Rs.10,000/- on 8.12.1995, Rs.10,000/- on 6.1.1997, Rs.4,000/- on 18.2.1997 and Rs.40,000/- on 25.6.2001 with the Society and the entries were made in his passbook. However, the officials of the Society did not deposit the said amount with the Federation and rather the Secretary and the Cashier of the Society mis-utilised and embezzled the said amount for their personal use.
The opposite parties launched one time settlement scheme on 12.09.2007 which was valid till 31.12.2007 according to which those lonanees who had deposited the double the amount of the loan raised by them, were entitled to the benefit of the one time settlement (OTS) and all the remaining surcharge and interest was waived off.
The complainant opted the said scheme and deposited the due amount against his loan account and accordingly, the original title deed of the complainant was returned to the complainant.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had already cleared the loan amount and the opposite parties wrongly and illegally got deposited a sum of Rs.69,362/- from him vide receipt No.1437 dated 27.08.2007. Complainant further alleged that a sum of Rs.5250/- was also lying with the Society as share money which was not adjusted by the Society. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. It was stated that the complainant was defaulted in making the instalments of the loan amount and therefore he was rightly recover Rs.69,362/- and the original title deed was returned to the opposite party No.2 Society on 07.01.2008. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the respondent No.1 (complainant) was a chronically defaulter in the payment of the instalments. The complainant had made the payment of only Rs.76,488/- and total amount outstanding against the complainant was Rs.4,67,081/- as on 31.12.2007. The complainant was given the benefit of the OTS scheme and his documents were returned after depositing the amount of Rs.68,262/- and the share money of Rs.5250/- was also adjusted towards the loan account of the complainant. But after getting the documents, the complainant with malafide intention filed complaint on false and frivolous ground by twisting the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that OTS scheme was not the part of the loan agreement. The complainant was liable to pay the loan amount as per the loan agreement without any default and he had no right over the OTS scheme according to which the complainant had to pay at least the double of the loan amount to get the loan cleared and even if some amount was paid in excess of the double amount of the loan, the same does not entitles the complainant for refund as the OTS scheme did not replaces the loan agreement. The complainant was defaulter in making the instalments of the loan amount and therefore he was not entitled for any benefit as claimed.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. It is established on the record that the complainant was defaulter in making the payment of the instalments of the loan amount. The complainant had obtained the loan of Rs.75,000/- and only returned Rs.76,488/- and total outstanding amount against complainant was Rs.4,67,081/-. Thus, the complainant was not entitled for any benefit of the OTS. District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its true perspective, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.14,250/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 01.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member