State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Haryana State Co-Operative Housing ... vs 1.Om Parkash Fon Of Bhagat Singh ... on 20 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.274 of 2009 Date of Institution: 17.02.2005 Date of Decision: 20.09.2012 The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. Bays No.49-52, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Development Officer, Jind. Appellant (Ops 1&2) Versus 1. Om Parkash fon of Bhagat Singh resident of 1/108, Patel Nagar, Patiala Chowk, Jind. Respondent (Complainant) 2. The Supreme & Ariya Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Kothi No.4146, Defence Colony, Jind. Respondent (OP-4) 3. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Mini Secretariat, Jind. Respondent (OP-3) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for appellant. Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Manish Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jind whereby complaint bearing No.253/2008 filed by complainant (respondent No.1 herein) against the opposite parties was accepted and following directions were issued:-
.so the complaint is allowed against opposite parties No.1 and 2. The Housing Federation Ltd. Haryana is held responsible for the payment of Rs.32,519/-. The opposite parties No.1 and
2 are directed to make the payment of a sum of Rs.32,519/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant from 1.1.2009 till payment.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd. Panchkula 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 was 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.
Complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.90,000/- from Supreme Co-operative House Building Society since amalgamated in the Ariya Co-operative Society Ltd. Jind on 31.3.2000. According to the complainant he had paid back the loan amount of Rs.78,670/- to the opposite party No.4 Supreme and Ariya Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. The complainant defaulted payment of the loan instalment.
The Government of Haryana floated one time settlement scheme on 12.09.2007 which was valid till 31.12.2007. As per the scheme, those loanees who had deposited the double the amount of the loan raised by them, were given the benefit of the scheme and all the remaining interest, penal interest was to be waived off. By adopting the aforesaid scheme of one time settlement, the complainant deposited Rs.26,034/- on 31.12.2007 and therefore, his documents were released by the opposite parties after depositing the amount of Rs.1,33,500/- and adjusting the share money of Rs.6300/-. After getting the documents under the OTS scheme, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint with the averments that the opposite parties had charged Rs.32,519/- in excess from him and thus sought refund of Rs.32,519/- alongwith interest @ 8% from 01.01.2008.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statements. It was stated that the opposite party No.2 Federation had received a sum of Rs.1,81,270.87 in the account of the complainant through the opposite party No.4 Society including the share money of Rs.6300/- and the documents were returned under OTS Scheme. Denying any excess payment, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
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.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that OTS scheme was not the loan agreement and the complainant was liable to pay the loan amount as per the loan agreement and had no right over the OTS scheme. As per the OTS scheme 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. In the instant case the complainant had deposited Rs.1,81,271/- towards his loan account and therefore, he was not entitled for any refund.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. From the record it is established that the complainant had deposited Rs.26,034/- on 31.12.2007. The complainant was given the benefit of the OTS scheme and his documents were released after depositing the amount of Rs.1,3,500/- and adjusting the share money of Rs.6300/-. The details of the deposits are given herein below:-
Sr.no.
Receipt Date Amount
1. 31.03.1992 900
2. 09.10.1992 3500
3. 08.12.1992 1000
4. 12.12.1992 2634
5. 07.07.2005 18000
6. 31.12.2007 133500
7. Share money 6300
8. Other adjustments 21737
9. Total 1,81,271 In view of the above stated facts of the case and the documents produced on the record, we feel that the complainant had settled his claim under OTS scheme and received the documents and therefore now the complainant cannot take the plea that any excess amount was received by the opposite parties from the complainant. 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.17,845/-
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 20.09.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member p