A state consumer redressal forum has dismissed a petitioner’s plea seeking Rs 16 lakh (cost of a house) from Auda for not processing his application form for a government housing scheme.
The forum has, however, directed the bank to pay the customer Rs 12000 with 9% interest and Rs2000 for legal cost after it failed to duly inform the customer in writing about an invalid demand draft paid for the said scheme.
The case concerned one Dilip Jaiswal, a resident of Kalupur, who approached the state consumer forum after the district forum dismissed his appeal.
Jaiswal had paid Rs200 fee and made a demand draft of Rs 15,000 along with a duly filled application form to Axis Bank to apply for a Low and Middle Income Group housing scheme floated by AUDA in January 28, 2014.
The bank had failed to forward the application form to AUDA.
The bank in its defence said it was only the nodal agency for the scheme. It said it had not forwarded the application after AUDA informed it via a letter dated March 24, 2014 that no applications for the scheme had to be processed since the election code of conduct was in force and hence it had not forwarded the collected application including that of Jaiswal.
It also said that it had informed the customer that his earlier DD had become invalid and he had to provide a new one to which the applicant never responded.
The court ruled that despite its defence, the bank didn’t provide any copies of a letter from AUDA asking it to put the application process on hold. It also observed that the bank had informed the customer about the invalid demand draft via phone and there was no proof of the same so hence prima facie there was a deficiency in service on the party of the bank.
As to the customer’s demand that he should be paid Rs 16 lakh cost of the house, the court observed that the housing scheme floated by AUDA was based on lucky draw. So there was a possibility that the applicant (had his application reached the authorities on time) might have got lucky and had been allotted a house. But it was equally possible that he may not have been allotted a house under the draw system.
The court also observed that AUDA had also informed him that they had not received his application. In light of the events, and the possibility that the applicant had an equal chance of being allotted and not allotted a house under the scheme, AUDA cannot be asked to pay the cost of house to the applicant. The court thus rejected that demand of the applicant.
