Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Chairman.
.…Appellant/Opposite Party.
VERSUS
Sh. Amit Roy s/o Sh.Surinder Kumar, aged 33, R/o 2621, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.
…. Respondent/Complainant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, (Retd.) PRESIDENT
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv. for the appellant.
Ms. Tajinder Kaur Johal, Adv. for the respondent.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP against the order, dated 8.10.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint in the following manner;
“12. Henceforth, judged from every angle, entirety of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of OP is writ large. The complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.70,000/- at the saving bank rate from 04.12.2010 (after one month from the date of lots) till 12.4.2012, the date when payment was finally made. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment, besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall be liable to pay the interest @ 15% p.a. instead of saving bank rate, on the amount of Rs.70,000/- from 04.12.2010 (after one month from the date of lots) till 12.4.2012, the date when payment was finally made as well as on the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 12.06.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying costs of litigation, as aforesaid.”
2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the Opposite Party had floated a Self Financing Housing Scheme – 2008 for the employees of Chandigarh Administration in the year 2008, for which, the complainant applied in Group ‘C’ category vide Application Form No.51046 and deposited Rs.70,000/- as earnest money, which was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party vide receipt dated 3.3.2008. It was stated that the tentative price of one bedroom flat on 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor was fixed as Rs.10.96 lacs. It was further stated that complainant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots. The Opposite Party refunded the deposited amount after a period of 4 years vide its letter dated 30.4.2012 without any interest, though it was clearly stipulated in the scheme, that interest was payable, at savings bank rate beyond the period of 30 days, from the draw of lots. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade Practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.
3 In its reply the Opposite Party stated that the complainant applied under the scheme on 3.3.2008 and gave an undertaking to the effect that he would not claim any interest on the amount. It was further stated that if the complainant remains unsuccessful in the draw of lots, then the amount was to be refunded back to him within 30 days from that date. It was further stated that due to the pendency of litigation before the Hon’ble High Court pertaining to the Scheme, in question, the draw of lots could not be held till 4.11.2010. The waiting list was valid upto one year from the date of draw of lots. It was further stated that there was a dispute between Group B and C. It was further stated that the matter with regard to the validity was submitted before the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.15111 of 2009, 20804/19175 of 2010 and 3685 of 2011 before the expiry of waiting list. The Hon’ble High Court decided the abovesaid case on 25.1.2012. It was further stated that the matter was placed before the property allotment committee in its meeting held on 29.2.2012 for the implementation of the said decision and after compliance of the orders of Hon’ble High Court, the waiting list lapsed after the adjustment of three vacant dwelling units which had become available due to surrender of registration numbers by the successful applicants of Group C to the succeeding eligible applicants in the waiting list. Accordingly, the Opposite Party refunded the amount to the complainant vide cheque No.133705 dated 12.4.2012 and as such he was not entitled to any interest on the earnest money. The refund of earnest money to unsuccessful applicants was made as per Clause VIII (v) of the brochure of the scheme and as per this clause, if the refund was not made within 30 days of draw of lots, the interest shall be allowed at the saving bank rate beyond 30 days. The remaining allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Party nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
4 The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5 After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order
6 Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
7 We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.
8 The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent/complainant applied for the allotment of dwelling unit under the scheme known as self financing housing scheme-2008. It was further submitted that due to pendency of litigation before the Hon’ble High Court pertaining to the scheme in question the draw of lots was held on 4.11.2010. Thereafter a waiting list to the extent of 20% of the total number of units available under each category subject to minimum one in accordance with sub clause iv of Clause VIII, was prepared in which the name of the complainant was also included, and the same was valid for one year. It was further submitted that there was a dispute between the applicants of Group B and C and the matter of validity was submitted before the Hon’ble High Court and the same was decided on 25.1.2012. It was further stated that in compliance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court the waiting list lapsed after adjustment of three vacant dwelling units. Accordingly after completing all the formalities the complainant was refunded the earnest money on 12.4.2012 the amount initially deposited by him, as per clause VIII(v) of the Brochure of the scheme and there was no delay in refunding the said amount. Moreover the complainant himself in the application form gave a declaration that he shall not claim any interest on the amount deposited for allotment under the scheme. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant and the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
9 The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the order of the District Forum being just and fair and required no interference because the Opposite Party refunded the deposited amount after delay and as per Clause VIII(v) of the brochure he was entitled to interest.
10 Admittedly after the draw of lots in November, 2010 the name of the complainant was in the waiting list, which was valid upto one year. As per Clause VIII (iv) if the validity of the waiting list lapsed, then the applicants were entitled to refund within 30 days of the date of expiry. However, the waiting list could not be cleared within one year due to the pendency of writ before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High, which was finally decided on 25.1.2012 and thereafter the amount deposited by the complainant was refunded on 12.4.2012 being a unsuccessful candidate for allotment of dwelling unit under waiting list.
11 Now the question for consideration before us whether the complainant is entitled to the interest on the amount deposited by him as per Clause VIII (v). Our answer is in the affirmative. No doubt a writ was pending before the Hon’ble High Court but no stay was granted by the Hon’ble High Court regarding the refund of the deposited amount to the applicants who were kept in the waiting list, within the stipulated time. Moreover the Opposite Party failed to prove its bonafides by producing, on record, any letter/document to show that it had ever informed the complainant whether he wanted to withdraw the amount, deposited by him, or keep the same deposited till the decision of the Hon’ble High Court. Certainly the Opposite Party refunded the deposited amount to the complainant on 12.4.2012, after the decision of the writ, which was well beyond the period stipulated in Clause VIII(v) of the brochure of the Opposite Party. Thus the complainant was certainly entitled to get interest on the initial amount deposited by him with the Opposite Party as per Clause VIII (v) of the Brochure.
12 As far as the objection regarding declaration made by the complainant that he will not claim interest, is concerned, the same is meaning less because the perusal of para No.6 of the declaration in Annexure B, reveals that it does not give any clue whether the interest was not to be claimed by the complainant within stipulated period of 30 days or beyond that period. In Clause VIII(v) of the brochure it was clearly mentioned that the complainant would be entitled to interest on the deposit, if the same was refunded beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. Thus, certainly the complainant was entitled to interest as per clause VIII(v) of the brochure of the Opposite Party. Hence the District Forum rightly passed the order and it requires no interference being legal and valid.
13 In view of the above we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The District Forum order is upheld.
14 Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
Pronounced.
