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

========

Vijay Kumar, r/o #3187, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             The complainant had applied to the OP for allotment of flat in Sector 49-D, Chandigarh on free hold basis in the year 2006. He was declared successful in the draw of lots held by the OP on 17.04.2006 and thereafter Acceptance-Cum-Demand letter dated 22.09.2006 was issued to him copy of which is Annexure-1.  He was required to deposit the amount of Rs.12,90,000/- within 30 days from the issue of the letter and could also pay the amount by installments. He claims to have paid Rs.1,29,000/- as earnest money at the time of opening of the scheme and Rs.10,00,000/- vide demand draft dated 19.10.2006 but subsequently on 4.12.2009 (vide Annexure-II) the OP demanded a sum of Rs.15,093/- which was deposited on 9.12.2009. The complainant filed the present complaint alleging that the cut-off date to deposit the whole amount was 21.10.06 and the total amount was deposited by him on 26.10.2006 therefore the OP was entitled only to interest for four days. He therefore prayed for the refund of Rs.15,093/- alongwith interest @30% p.a. and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.

2.             Before admitting the complaint it was considered necessary to examine the same as to whether it should be admitted for regular hearing or not.

3.              It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4.             It is admitted by the complainant that he did not deposit the amount in time as required by the OP. When the OP demanded the amount of Rs.15.093/- vide Annexure-II, the same was deposited on 9.12.2009 without any objection. After deposit of the said amount the complainant never agitated the matter and did not protest to the OP, if this amount was not due from him.  We are of the opinion that since the amount was deposited without any protest, which was neither lodged at the time of the deposit nor immediately thereafter, it would be presumed that the complainant agreed that the said amount was due from him therefore it cannot be agitated through this complaint.  Infact when no demand is made from the OP, the complainant allege any deficiency on their part and cannot ask for processing of his claim before this Forum without lodging any claim about the same with the OP.

5.             Admittedly the amount was deposited late.  The contention of the complainant that they should charge interest only for four days by which period the late deposit was made cannot be accepted because the said amount having not been deposited till December, 2009 would carry interest which varies from 18% to 24% p.a. It therefore cannot be said if the complainant is liable only to pay interest for four days and not thereafter.

6.             As per Annexure -1, the complainant had the option either to pay the amount in lump sum within 30 days of the receipt of the letter or to pay it in three succeeding six monthly installments.  Admittedly the amount was not paid in lump sum by the said date and therefore the complainant was liable to pay the amount by installments.  The complainant was liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. thereon.  When the total amount is calculated the OP has rightly found that the amount of Rs.15,093/- was due from him and therefore he was directed to deposit the same.  In addition to the last installment payable within 540 days from the date of letter dated 22.09.2006, it therefore cannot be said if there was any excess payment made by the complainant.

7.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint.  the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.