BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No :   90  of  2010

                                                    [ R.B.T. No. 235 of 2010]

Date of Institution:    08.02.2010

Date of Decision  :    19.11.2010

Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Painu Ram, resident of House No. 3187, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:        SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA            PRESIDENT

                MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

PRESENT:   Sh.Painu Ram, Father of the Complainant.

Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Adv. for the OP.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                Setting aside the order dated 19.02.2010, passed by the Learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity ‘Learned District Forum-I), the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 08.04.2010, remanded the case back to District Forum-II for proper adjudication and disposal of the complaint in accordance with law after taking evidence of the parties.

1]             A perusal of the facts of the case shows that the Complainant had applied for allotment of a first floor one bed room flat under Sub-Scheme ‘A’ from the OP.  He was successful in the draw of lots held on 17.04.2006. The Complainant paid Rs.12.90 lacs for the flat to the OP.

                In the letter of offer dated 12.9.2006, placed at Annexure-I, it was mentioned by the OP that in case full payment of the dwelling unit was made within 30 days from the issue of the said letter, no interest would be charged. As per conditions laid down, the cut-off date for deposit of full amount was 21.10.2006. The Complainant deposited the full amount on 26.10.2006. The Complainant has alleged that he had made a delay of only 04 days.

                Thereafter, the OP on 04.12.2009, made a demand of Rs.15,093/- from the Complainant before handing over possession of the flat. The Complainant, deposited the amount and thereafter, filed the instant complaint, claiming that this demand of the OP was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Alleging unfair trade practice, the Complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,093/-, along with interest @30% per annum and compensation.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP.

                The OP in their reply have submitted that the Scheme for allotment of the said flats was floated on 28.10.2005. As per the provision of the Scheme, Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter (for brevity ‘ACDL’) was issued to the Complainant on 22.9.2006, where the amounts mentioned, were required to be paid.  It was provided under the Scheme that:-

                                “(i)                The prices indicated above are final.

(ii) The price indicated is for a typical unit and may vary for non-typical units i.e. for corner unit etc.

(iii) In case full payment of the dwelling unit is made within 30 (thirty) days from the issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter, no interest shall be charged.

(iv) The rate of interest of the housing scheme is 10% p.a.”

                When final allotment letter was issued to the Complainant on 04/12/2009, the Complainant deposited Rs.15,093/-, in compliance with the allotment letter, without registering any protest/ objection. The OP has submitted that they presumed that the Complainant agreed that the said amount was due from him and as such, he should not have agitated on the issue through the present complaint.

                On merits, the OP has submitted that as per ACDL, the Complainant was required to deposit Rs.12.90 lacs as full and final payment by 22.10.2006. The Complainant deposited the amount on 26.10.2006.

                When the allotment letter was issued to the Complainant in 2009, final calculations were done by their Accounts Branch. It was found that a sum of Rs.15,093/- was due from the Complainant, on account of interest accrued from him for the delayed payment, as the Complainant had failed to deposit the final payment within the stipulated time of 30 days. The OP has, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3]             At the time of argument, we have heard the father of the Complainant in person and the ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the evidence & documents led by the parties in support of their contentions, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainant.

4]             The case of the Complainant is that he had made the full payment towards the flat only 04 days after the final date of payment when demand was made from him. The OP kept silent about the delay and interest due on the amount, due to the delay, till they issued the final letter of allotment, which was over 3 years later. The OP has admitted that the Complainant had made full payment of the amount demanded from him. The payment was credited to the account of the OP after 8 days. When the allotment of the dwelling unit was actually made to the allottees and accounts of the Complainant were verified to check for any amounts due, it was found that interest for the delayed payment was due from the Complainant. Accordingly, OP charged interest for one month, due to the delay in payment. 

5]             The Complainant, at the time of arguments, insisted that since delay was only for 04 days, the OP’s should not have taken interest for a full month, but should have charged the same for 04 days only. There is no clause in the brochure of the Chandigarh Housing Board or in any document anywhere in the file to show that in case of delay by either of the parties, interest would be charged on a daily basis. Hence, this contention of the Complainant seems unjustified. The OP has, therefore, rightly charged him interest for one month. 

6]                 In view of above and taking into consideration the contentions and evidence of both the parties in accordance with law, as directed by the Hon’ble State Commission, we are agreeable with the orders of Ld. District Forum-I, even though in limine; and accordingly, dismiss the complaint, being devoid of any merits.  Both parties may bear their own costs.

7]             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                                   

19^th Nov., 2010

Sd/-

                                                          LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’