West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/455/2014

Lipika Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Housing Commissioner-1, W.B. Housing Board. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT - II.
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/455/2014
 
1. Lipika Das
Manicktala ESI Hospital Quarter, No. 5 Block-A, Type-VI, 55 Bagmari Road, Kolkata-700054. P.S. Manicktala.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Assistant Housing Commissioner-1, W.B. Housing Board.
105 S. N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-700054. P.S. Taltola.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Bipin Mukhopadhyay PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Self, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Op is present.
 
ORDER

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that she applied for LIG flat Project ECTP/W/HB for lower income group State Government Employee on 17-07-1993 and on 25-02-1994 on the basis of lottery she was allotted flat No.16/5, Type-E, Phase-IV in East Kolkata Township Project.

          Price of the flat was fixed Rs.63,500/- on 17-07-1993, complainant paid application money of Rs.5,000/- on 01-08-1994 and paid also allotment money of Rs.20,255/- and accrued interest on application money is Rs.145/- and after allotment total due was Rs.38,100/-.  Thereafter, complainant took housing building loan mortgaging the original deed in January, 1996.  Instalment started from January, 1996 onward.  Loan amount was Rs.38,100/-, Loan Tenure was for 15 years instalmet scheduled twice a year i.e. January and July and number of instalment was 30 whereas amount of instalment is Rs.3,070/- and penal interest 18 percent in case of delayed payment of instalment.  Last instalment of loan was July, 2010.

          As per complaint complainant paid entire dues.

          Complainant has submitted that due to her ill health the instalment payment was held up for 5 years and the next instalment paid on 05-06-2007 and instalment due in the period was 10 and amount calculated was Rs.32,700/- and that was paid on 05-06-2007.  Accordingly, complainant after clearing the same and after payment of 30th instalment Rs.18,511/- was paid as full and final instalment.  Thereafter, complainant prayed for getting back his original deed of flat but OP informed that that is not the system of handover the deed personally but they will send it within 15 days by registered post but said did has not yet been received by the complainant even after clearance of the entire dues.  Thereafter, complainant made several attempts to get the said deed from the OP and for NOC but again and again she has been harassed by the OP and subsequently on 19-08-2011 she got a letter from the OP for full payment in respect of the flat and also directed to clear balance dues and on receipt of that letter complainant and her husband went to the Board Office and reported that on 11-02-2010 full and final payment has been made.  Thereafter, complainant made repeated reminders.  But no result has been received and in the above circumstances the present complaint is filed for redressal.

          On the other hand, OP by filing written statement submitted that, in fact, complainant failed to pay the instalment regularly and delay of payment was for several years and subsequently he paid it so penalty was assessed as per allotment and truth is that complainant started to pay first instalment on 22-01-1996 but last instalment was paid on 31-10-2014 but due date was 07-01-2010 and another factor is that during the payment of 13 instalment month by month complainant always paid it at belated stage and that statement of belated payment was sent to the complainant and complainant received it but did not pay.  Until and unless the said amount was paid it is not possible for the OP to refund the deed including NOC.  So, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the complaint and written version including the arguments as advanced by the complainant herself and the Ld. Lawyer of the OP and also consider the letter dated 15-01-2014 issued by the OP it is clear that complainant did not pay the instalment amount half yearly within due date but always she paid the same at belated stage and in one occasion for 5 years she did not pay instalment amount which is admitted by the complainant but considering the statement of account of payment including late payment interest rate as admitted by the complainant to the extent of 18 percent we have gathered that last payment was fixed on 01-01-2010 whereas complainant paid that amount after lapse of 4 years that is on 31-10-2014 prior to that 28th to 30th instalments was paid on 31-10-2014 but due date was 07-01-2009, 01-01-2010 and 01-01-2010.  Similarly, it is found that instalment No.14 to 19 were paid on 06-05-2007 but actual due date was in between 07-01-2002 to 01-01-2005.  Further considering that statement of account of payment since 01-01-1996 to 31-10-2014 it is clear that complainant is at fault, she did not pay instalment always but paid it at belated stage and in payment of instalment range of delay was from 21days to 1948 days.  So, considering all the above facts we find that there was no fault on the part of the OP and invariably the amount was assessed by the OP for belated payment which is very meager amount and no doubt complainant is bound to pay the same and after payment of the same complainant shall pray for refund of the deed of conveyance and also for any NOC from the OP.

          Anyhow, we have gathered that this complaint is filed by the complainant with a hope that she may get some benefit in payment of claimed amount that is interest for delayed payment but as per allotment letter we find that the assessment of penal interest as per said allotment letter is quite correct, calculation is up to the mark.  So, under any circumstances, complainant has failed to prove the deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP in discharging their duties and at the same time the claim of the OP is balanced, judicious and correct.  In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this complaint for which this complaint fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Bipin Mukhopadhyay]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.