State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Paramjit Kaur vs Axis Bank on 9 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 184 of 2013 Date of Institution : 03.05.2013 Date of Decision : 09.05.2013 Paramjit Kaur D/o Naranjan Singh Walia, r/o House No.444, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. Axis Bank, through its Manager, SCO No.343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 2. Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari, Haryana. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). At the same time, the District Forum also directed Opposite Party No.1, that, if the amount of draft had remained unrealized, then it (Opposite Party No.1) shall return the same, immediately, to the complainant, on completion of the requisite formalities, if any.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for the allotment of a residential plot, in Sector 1, Part I, Narnaul, to Opposite Party No.2, and paid a sum of Rs.32,040/-, alongwith the application. After being successful, in the draw of lots, the complainant was allotted residential plot No.410, in Sector 1, Part I, measuring area of 209 sq mt., vide allotment letter dated 03.07.2003, the tentative price whereof was Rs.3,20,400/-. All the installments towards the price of plot, were paid by the complainant, on time, as per the details given in the complaint. The complainant received a notice dated 31.12.2007 Annexure C-3, whereby she was asked to pay the amount of Rs.93,034/-, towards additional price, in addition to the tentative price of residential plot. The complainant, immediately, approached her banker (Opposite Party No.1), and got the demand draft prepared, by it (Opposite Party No.1), for the said amount, in favour of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari/Opposite Party No.2, on 28.01.2008. It was stated that, as per earlier practice, the draft was to be sent by Opposite Party No.1, directly to Opposite Party No.2. However, the complainant was surprised to know, that the No Due Certificate was not sent by Opposite Party No.2, to her.
3. It was further stated that when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2, she was informed that the enhanced amount i.e. the additional price, in addition to the tentative price of residential plot, had not been credited, to his (Opposite Party No.2) account, and now an amount of Rs.2,69,775/-, was due against her, which included interest @ 15% per annum, on the unpaid amount. It was further stated that when the complainant approached the officials of Opposite Party No.1, she was told that the said demand draft had already been sent to Opposite Party No.2. However, on pursuing the matter, the complainant realized that the demand draft, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, had actually not been sent by Opposite Party No.1, to Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the complainant also got a certificate Annexure C-5, from Opposite Party No.1, proving that the demand draft was actually prepared by it, on the asking of the complainant, on 28.01.2008, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, in favour of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant, thereafter, settled the accounts, with Opposite Party No.2, by sending a fresh draft of Rs.2,69,775/-. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.2,37,134/- (infact Rs.2,69,775/-), alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the date of deposit i.e. 06.03.2012; the amount, received in excess; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
4. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that the demand draft, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, in favour of Opposite Party No.2, had been prepared and handed over to the complainant. It was denied that it had any role, in sending the demand draft, to Opposite Party No.2. It was also denied that Opposite Party No.1, ever assured the complainant of sending the demand draft, directly, to Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that, in case, after getting prepared the demand draft, the complainant did not send the same, to Opposite Party No.2, then she could not blame Opposite Party No.1, for the same. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Notice of the complaint, was sent to Opposite Party No.2, through registered cover, on 18.7.2012, by the District Forum, but, on expiry of 30 days, neither he, nor any authorized representative put in appearance, on his behalf, as a result whereof, he was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, on 28.08.2012.
6. The complainant and Opposite Party No.1, led evidence, in support of their case.
7. On 26.03.2013, when the complaint was fixed for final arguments, none appeared, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2, was already exparte. The District Forum, however, decided to proceed further and dispose of the complaint, on merits, as envisaged by Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13 (2) of the Act (as amended up-to-date), in the absence of Opposite Party No.1.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, it was the duty of respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, to send the demand draft, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, to respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2, directly. He further submitted that since, respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, did not send the demand draft, aforesaid, which was got prepared by the appellant/complainant, from it, directly to Opposite Party No.2, demand of enhanced amount, towards additional price, alongwith interest, was raised by the latter, which she had to pay. He further submitted that even before raising the demand of enhanced amount, it was required of Opposite Party No.2, to issue show cause notice, to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter, and the relevant provisions of law, but he did not do so, as a result whereof, he was not entitled to charge any interest, for the alleged period of delay. He further submitted that, no doubt, the complainant got prepared another draft prepared, in the sum of Rs.2,69,775/-, in respect of the demand for enhanced amount, towards additional price, and paid the same to respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2, alongwith interest @15% P.A. He further submitted that, all this happened, on account of deficiency, in rendering service, as also adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that the appellant/complainant was entitled to the relief sought for, but the same was illegally declined, by the District Forum. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
12. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant was allotted residential plot No.410, in Sector 1, Part I, measuring 209 sq mt., vide allotment letter dated 03.07.2003, the tentative price whereof was Rs.3,20,400/-, by Opposite Party No.2. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant had her account with Opposite Party No.1, and she got prepared a draft, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, in respect of the enhanced amount towards additional price, from Opposite Party No.1. No document was produced, on record, by the complainant, that respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, agreed to send the demand draft to respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2, directly. On the other hand, respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that the demand draft, after being prepared, was handed over to the appellant/complainant. It was also, in clear-cut terms, stated in the written version, by respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, that it had no role, in sending the demand draft, directly to Opposite Party No.2. Annexure C-4, is a copy of the Specimen of Indemnity Letter for Issuing Duplicate Draft. Annexure C-5 is a copy of the certificate, given by Opposite Party No.1, regarding the purchase of demand draft, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, which fact is not otherwise disputed by it (Opposite Party No.1). These two documents do not, in any way, reveal that the original demand draft was lost, at the end of respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, or it was required to send the same to respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2, directly. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, from these documents, to prove that it was the duty of respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, to send demand draft, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, which was got prepared by the appellant/complainant, from it, to respondent no.2/ Opposite Party No.2, directly. The averments, contained in the written version, were not repudiated/rebutted by the appellant/complainant, by way of filing rejoinder or leading any cogent evidence. Thus, the District Forum was right, in holding that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, nor adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties.
13. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, any show cause notice was issued by respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2, before raising demand for enhanced amount i.e. the amount towards additional price. According to Clause 9 of the allotment letter, the price of plot was tentative, and any additional price determined by Opposite Party No.2, on account of enhancement, in the cost of land, awarded by the Competent Authority, under the Land Acquisition Act, shall be payable within 30 days, of its demand. It may be stated here, that show cause notice dated 31.12.2007, copy whereof is Annexure C-3, was issued to the appellant/complainant for payment of enhanced amount i.e. additional price, to the tune of Rs.93,034/-. According to paragraph number 4 of this show cause notice, the complainant was requested to pay the amount by means of demand draft, in favour of the Estate Officer, Rewari, within 30 days, from the date of issue of the same (notice), failing which, interest @15% P.A., was to be charged, from the date of issuance of the same (notice), upto the date of payment. Once, this show cause notice was given to the appellant/complainant, it was required of her, to deposit the amount mentioned therein, within the stipulated time, otherwise, interest @15% P.A. was to be charged, by Opposite Party No.2, after the expiry of a period of 30 days, from the date of issuance of the same (notice). As stated above, if the demand draft, in the sum of Rs.93,034/-, after the same was handed over to her, by Opposite Party No.1, was not deposited by the appellant/complainant, with respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2, then the blame lay on her shoulders, and not on the shoulders of respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1 or respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2. Since the amount was not deposited by the complainant, in time, with Opposite Party No.2, after adding interest thereto, an amount of Rs.2,69,775/-, fell due against the appellant/complainant, to respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2. It was this amount, which was, ultimately, deposited by the complainant through demand draft copy whereof is Annexure C-6, with respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2. Under these circumstances, respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2, could not be directed to refund the interest amount, which had been charged by him, on account of default in making payment of a sum of Rs.93,034/-, as per show cause notice Annexure C-3, within 30 days, from the date of issuance of the same. Thus, respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2 was also not deficient, in rendering service, to the appellant/complainant.
14. The grievance of the complainant was, however, redressed by the District Forum, in paragraph no.7 of the order impugned, by stating that if the amount of the original draft had remained unrealized, Opposite Party No.1 shall return the same, immediately, to the complainant, on completion of the requisite formalities, if any.
15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
16. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
18. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
May 9, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg.