Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/646/2014

Shailesh Mani Tripathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/646/2014
Date of Institution	:	24/09/2014
Date of Decision	:	05/02/2015

 

 

Shailesh Mani Tripathi s/o late Sh. Rama Shankar Tripathi r/o H.No.1473, Phase-I, Ram Darbar, U.T., Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chairman, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Account Officer-1, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, Sector 9, Chandigarh

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                                       

                       

ARGUED BY:	Complainant in person
	Sh. Vikas Jain, Counsel for OPs.

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Shailesh Mani Tripathi, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Chandigarh Housing Board and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that vide letter dated 6.11.2009 he was informed that he had been declared successful in the second draw of lots held on 10.11.2008 under General category for the General Self Financing Scheme-2008 in Sector 63, Chandigarh floated by the OPs. Thereafter, vide ACDL (acceptance cum demand) letter dated 7.12.2011 (Annexure C-1), he was informed about the mode of payment.  According to the complainant, as per clause 3 (ii) of the letter, in case the full amount of the dwelling unit is made within 30 days from the date of issuance of Acceptance-cum-demand letter, no interest would be charged. The complainant adopted the said clause of mode of payment and deposited the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- vide bank draft dated 3.1.2012 and the remaining amount of Rs.49,625/- was also deposited in cash on 4.1.2012 with the Banker of the OPs i.e. Axis Bank. However, vide letter dated 18.7.2013 (Annexure C-5) the complainant was informed that he had failed to deposit the said amounts within the stipulated period.  The complainant submitted detailed reply dated 22.7.2013 (Annexure C-6) mentioning therein that the letter dated 7.12.2011 was despatched by the OPs on 14.12.2011 and, therefore, the due date for depositing of the amount would be 12.1.2012. However, without considering the reply of the complainant, the OPs passed an order dated 11.9.2014 (Annexure C-9) asking him to pay Rs.7,644/- on account of interest on account of delay in payment.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint
2.         In their joint written reply, OPs have admitted that the complainant was successful in the draw held on 10.11.2008 and he was issued registration letter dated 6.11.2009 and thereafter floor was allotted to him by draw of lots held on 7.4.2010.  It has also been admitted that the complainant was issued acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 7.12.2011. It has been contended that the complainant was required to deposit the full amount within 30 days from the date of issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter but he failed to do the same.  It has been pleaded that the days were to be counted from the issue of acceptance cum demand letter and not from the receipt of letter physically by the complainant.  It has been averred that the OPs despatched the letter to the complainant in time but the amount was credited in the account of the OPs on 6.1.2012 i.e. after 30 days from the date of issue of acceptance cum demand letter, therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the interest as decided by the Board in the meeting held on 24.1.2014.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         We have scanned the entire evidence, written arguments of OPs and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs. 
5.         It is the admitted case of the parties that the Chandigarh Housing Board had floated a housing scheme for the general public of U.T., Chandigarh namely General Self Financing Scheme 2008 in Sector 63, Chandigarh on 31.3.2008 on leasehold basis vide brochure Ex.R-1. The complainant was successful in the draw held on 10.11.2008 and he was allotted registration No.GHS63-EWS-GEN-53 vide letter dated 6.11.2009 and thereafter floor was allotted to him by the draw of lots held on 7.4.2010. The complainant was issued acceptance cum demand letter bearing No.HB-AOI-SO-(IV)-2011/18569 dated 7.12.2011 (Annexure C-1/R-2). As per clause 3(ii) of the acceptance cum demand letter, in case of full payment of the dwelling unit, the complainant was required to deposit the full amount within 30 days from the date of its issue.  According to the OPs, the amount was credited in the account of the Chandigarh Housing Board on 6.1.2012 i.e. after 30 days from the date of issue of acceptance cum demand letter, therefore, as per letter dated 11.9.2014 (Annexure C-9), the complainant is required to deposit a sum of Rs.7,644/- towards interest.
6.         According to the details of payment, as given in Annexure C-4, the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.5,66,250/- as full and final tentative price of the allotted flat as under :-

i)	Initial deposit at the time of submitting of application form	Rs.56,625/-
ii)	Amount deposited through Bank Draft No.955605 dated 03.01.2012 issued by State Bank of Patiala, Distt. Court, Chandigarh, Branch	Rs.4,60,000/-
iii)	Amount deposited in cash on 04.01.2012	Rs.49,625/-
	Total	Rs.5,66,250/-

7.         The core question for determination before this Forum is whether the full payment of the dwelling unit has been made within 30 days of the date of issuance of acceptance cum demand letter (Annexure C-1) or not?
8.         It has been urged by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant was issued the acceptance cum demand letter on 7.12.2011 and he opted to make the full payment of the dwelling unit within 30 days from the date of issue of acceptance cum demand letter.  He has argued that the complainant was required to deposit the entire payment till 5.1.2012 but he failed to deposit full amount within the period of 30 days because as per letter dated 9.9.2013 (Ex. R-3), the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- deposited by draft No.955605 was transferred in the current account of the Chandigarh Housing Board on 6.1.2012. The learned counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of the acceptance cum demand letter Annexure C-1 and has argued that in case of deposit of the amount through a demand draft, the credit was to be allowed from the date of its realization and since in this case the payment of the amount was not made by the due date of payment, the complainant is liable to pay interest as per para 5 of the said letter. The learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-1998 AIR (Punjab) 18, Devdutt Sharma Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission & Anr., CWP No.5020 of 2013 decided on 11.3.2013 by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Mandeep Singh Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, Application No.398/2012 decided on 10.5.2013 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) UT, Chandigarh and has vehemently argued that any relaxation in the delay may lead to illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the authorities.   He has contended that once the complainant was given an option to deposit the amount before a particular time, and there was delay in the clearance of the demand draft submitted by the complainant, the OPs cannot be held responsible for any delay and the action of the OPs to demand interest cannot be termed to be illegal.
9.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments of the learned counsel for the OPs. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the OPs, but we are of the opinion that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.5,66,250/- within 30 days of the issuance of  acceptance cum demand letter Annexure C-1/R-2.  It is true that in the acceptance cum demand letter the date of issue is mentioned as 7.12.2011.  However, the copy of the postal receipt Annexure C-8 shows that the OPs sent the said acceptance cum demand letter through registered post actually on 14.12.2011 and not on 7.12.2011. According to the complainant, the said letter sent by registered post was received by him only on 20.12.2011. Even as per the case of the OPs, the amount of the draft of Rs.4,60,000/- was credited in their account on 6.1.2012. We are of the opinion that once the acceptance cum demand letter was actually despatched by the OPs on 14.12.2011, the effective date of issuance of the letter would be 14.12.2011 and not 7.12.2011. We agree with the contention of the complainant that the issuance of the letter means physical issuance/ despatch to the addressee and only the mention of a particular date in the letter, cannot infer that the said letter was issued on that mentioned date. If a particular date is mentioned as the date of issue of letter by an official of the authority, but the letter is not actually despatched on that date, a consumer/allottee cannot be deprived of his legal right for this lapse on the part of the official of the authority. Since in this case the acceptance cum demand letter was actually issued and despatched to the addressee (complainant) on 14.12.2011, therefore, the due date for deposit of the amount in question would be 12.1.2012 and not 5.1.2012. It is well settled that when two interpretations of a word are possible, then the interpretation which is favourable to the consumer should be preferred.
10.         Even if it is assumed that the date of issue of acceptance cum demand letter Annexure C-1 is to be taken as 7.12.2011 nevertheless we feel that the amount was deposited within 30 days of 7.12.2011. Significantly, the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- was deposited vide draft No.955605 dated 3.1.2012 with the Axis Bank by the complainant on 3.1.2012 (Annexure C-2) and the remaining amount of Rs.49,625/- was deposited in cash with the Axis Bank on 4.1.2012.  The copy of letter dated 9.9.2013 (Ex.R-3) from the Axis Bank also shows that the allottee (complainant) had deposited one bank draft No.955605 of Rs.4,60,000/- on 3.1.2012. The same was sent for processing in clearing on 4.1.2012. The bank received shadow credit on 5.1.2012 for the said transaction and received clear funds on 6.1.2012.  We feel that had the Axis Bank sent the draft for processing in clearing on 3.1.2012 itself, it could have received clear funds on 5.1.2012.  So, the complainant was not at fault if the Bank did not take immediate steps for clearance. 
11.         Apart from it, the complainant has drawn our attention to the ruling Rishi Pal Lakra Vs. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation-2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 54 wherein in a case relating to dishonour of cheque, the question of period of one month i.e. 30 days for filing the complaint was considered and it was held that 30 days for filing the complaint will have to be reckoned from the day immediately following the day from the date of receipt of the information from the bank that the cheque was dishonoured. The date when the information was received has to be excluded. 
12.         Applying the ratio of the above said ruling to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent that the OPs issued the acceptance cum demand letter on 7.12.2011 (Annexure C-1). The date on which this letter was allegedly issued (7.12.2011), is to be excluded and the period of 30 days will have to be reckoned from the day immediately following 7.12.2011 i.e. 8.12.2011. If we count the period of 30 days from 8.12.2011 onwards, then since admittedly the amount was deposited by 6.1.2012, the same falls within 30 days period. Consequently, the action of the OPs in demanding an amount of Rs.7,644/- towards interest vide letter dated 11.9.2014 (Annexure C-9) is palpably illegal.  We find it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  We are of the considered opinion that the amount was deposited by the complainant within the period of 30 days of the date of issue of the acceptance cum demand letter. 
13.         We have gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the OPs.  The ruling Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University (supra) relates to the late receipt of the application form on account of delay on the part of postal authorities. The ruling Devdutt Sharma Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission (supra) also relates to the receipt of the application for a post after the last date of receipt of application. In Mandeep Singh Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board (supra) admittedly the full payment had not been made within 30 days from the issuance of acceptance cum demand letter.  Hence, none of the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the OPs is applicable to the facts of the present case.
14.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under :-

1. To withdraw the demand of Rs.7,644/- sent vide letter dated 11.9.2014 (Annexure C-9).
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and physical and mental harassment caused to him.
3. To pay Rs.7,500/- to the complainant towards costs of litigation.

15.         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter, the OPs shall pay the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, besides complying with directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
16.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
05.02.2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President