Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Haryna State Industrial And ... vs Dynamic Transmission on 3 March, 2017

  	 Daily Order 	   

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :      694 of 2016

 

Date of Institution:      27.07.2016

 

Date of Decision :       03.03.2017

 

1.     Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula having its office at C-13 & C-14, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Deputy General Manager.

 

2.     Estate Officer-cum-Branch Manager, Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, IMT, Rohtak.

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

1.      Dynamic Transmission Limited, 151, Hisar Road, Rohtak through its Managing Director, Anshul Kumar.

 

2.      Anshul Kumar s/o Sh. Jagbir Singh Narwal, Advocate, Resident of Kishan Kuteer, Sonipat Road, Rohtak.

 

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

 

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
                                                                                               

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate and Shri Gurvir Narwal, Advocate for respondents. 

   

                                                   O R D E R   NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)            Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short 'HSIIDC'), is in appeal against the order dated March 22nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short 'the District Forum'), whereby it directed the HSIIDC to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from August 10th, 2011 to October 30th, 2013 on the amount of Rs.18,22,500/- and Rs.3,000/- litigation expenses to the complainants.

2.                  Anshul Kumar (complainant No.2) - Managing Director, Dynamic Transmission Limited-complainant No.1, filed an application (Exhibit C-6) to the HSIIDC for allotment of a plot in Industrial Estate at IMT, Rohtak, on August 10th,  2011. He paid Rs.18,22,500/- to the HSIIDC as earnest money. The plot was to be allotted on the basis of interview. Till January, 2013, the HSIIDC did not take any action on the application of complainants. The complainants sought refund of the amount alongwith interest, vide application dated January 17th, 2013 (Exhibit C-8). The HSIIDC paid Rs.18,22,500/- to the complainants on October 30th, 2013 but without interest. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite parties- HSIIDC contested the complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the complainants had sought refund of Rs.18,22,500/- on January 17th, 2013 and the amount was paid vide cheque dated October 30th, 2013. As per condition No.(vii) of Clause 3.7 of the Estate Management Procedures (EMP) 2011, the complainants were not entitled to interest because the amount was paid within 60 days from the date of application whereby refund of the amount was sought. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the HSIIDC as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Learned counsel for the HSIIDC has fairly conceded at bar that on the application filed by the complainants, no action was taken by the HSIIDC till January 17th, 2013.

6.                Indisputably, the complainants applied for allotment of plot on August 10th, 2011 and till January 17th, 2013, the HSIIDC did not take any action on that application. This being so, the complainants had no other option but to seek refund of the amount from the HSIIDC. The amount of Rs.18,22,500/- has been utilized by the HSIIDC for a period more than two years.  So, the HSIIDC is liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.18,22,500/- to the complainants.  

7.                In view of the above, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

   

Announced:

03.03.2017   (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President   CL