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

========

                                        Complaint Case No : 1128 of 2009

                                        Date of Institution   :    07.08.2009

                                        Date of Decision     :    19.01.2010

Chaman Lal Goyal son of Late Sh.Murari Lal Goyal, resident of H.No.2123, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

Chandigarh Housing Board, through its Chairman, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

                                        ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL      PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Dharam Chand Mittal, Advocate for Complainant.

                Sh.Rajiv Sharma, Adv. for OP

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                The complainant in response to the scheme floated by OP vide Brochure Ann.C-1, applied for a Two Bed Room flat-Category-B and deposited Rs.2,91,405/- on 29.4.2008 vide Ann.C-2.  The complainant after becoming successful in  preliminary draw of lots as well as in the second draw of lots conducted in Nov., 2008, has been registered as an allottee in the category of retiree for allotment of Category-B, Two Bed Room Flats.  It is averred that as per terms & conditions of the scheme, a successful applicant has to make payment of Rs.4,37,108/- at the time of registration i.e. within 30 days of the issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter.  However, since the complainant did not receive any such letter from OP, he visited the office of OP and was shocked to know that till then no steps for development of the said housing scheme were taken by the OP due to which the letter of offer of allotment was not issued by the OP.  It is also averred that the OP was bound to first demarcate the land over which the Housing Scheme was floated by it and thereafter, a lay out plan was to be prepared and approved by it from all the concerned departments, but it was not done by the OP before floating the scheme in question and even the land sought to be developed was not demarcated and inspite of that the applications were invited form the general public.  It is further averred that more than 1 years and 4 months had elapsed since the closing of the said scheme and till filing of the complaint, there was no progress in the development of the housing scheme 2008.  It is asserted that payment schedule given in the brochure reveals that tentative price was sought to be recovered which included interest @12% and since the OP has reserved the right to fix a final price, it was misusing its position as due to delay, the OP was not going to suffer in any manner and only the successful applicants like the complainant would be the real sufferer as he would be charged higher price due to faults on the part of OP itself as the possession would be given much later.  It is also asserted that the project was to be cleared by Govt. of India and thereafter the necessary formalities of drawings for laying down sewerage line, water supply line, roads, common utility parks; approval of drawings would commence which might take long time and moreover, this fact was never mentioned in the brochure.  It is further asserted that the successful applicants have been kept in dark by not communicating them the expected date of issuance of acceptance-cum-demand letter and under the fear of cancellation of allotment, the complainant has to keep a sum of Rs.4,37,108/- ready for deposit as the same is required to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the receipt of said letter, otherwise complainant would lose allotment of flat.  It is next asserted that due to delay in finalizing the lay out plan, laying of sewerage and water supply line and delay in commencing the construction work and other necessary work, there would be increase of construction cost due to escalation of price for which the successful applicants like the complainant has to pay and that too only because of the fault of OP.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant had to suffer a lot. 

2]             OP filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is admitted that complainant being a successful applicant was allotted Two Bed Room dwelling unit and was intimated vide Ann.R-3.  It is denied that the OP has not taken any step for development.  The matter regarding clearance from various authorities was pursued and revised layout plan as well as Environment Clearance has already been obtained.  It is also stated that no Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter has been issued so far to the complainant.  It is further stated that the prices of the dwelling units in the present scheme were fixed even less than the price determined under the CPWD norms and were very much genuine.  It is submitted that the ACDL (Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter)  will be issued after the floor-wise draw, which was to be held within six months from 13.10.2009, as directed by the Hon’ble High court in VWP No.9458 of 2009 (Ann.R-4).  The brochure of the scheme laid down that the layout plant at the time of floating the scheme was tentative.  However, the scheme was well approved by the Chandigarh Administration and the same was floated after approval of lay out plan by the Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh, which was later on amended and stories of the buildings were increased from ground+3 to ground+5 to accommodate more people and in this manner the number of units were increased from 1976 to 2108.  It is also submitted that the present complaint is premature as there was no cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant.  Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]             Annexure C-1 is the brochure issued by the OP regarding the allotment of flats under “General Self Financing Housing Scheme 2008”. The price of ‘Two Bed Room Flat” is mentioned to be Rs.29,14,051/- out of which the complainant claims to have paid Rs.2,91,405/- only.  Needless to mention that in a Self Financing Housing Scheme the construction is to be raised with the amount paid by the applicants and if the complainant has not paid the amount, the question of raising any construction did not arise.

6]             Condition number XIII on Annexure C-1 shows that the allottee shall be entitled to the delivery of possession of the unit only after he/she has completed all the formalities and paid all dues and furnished/executed all the documents as required/prescribed under the scheme and in the allotment letter.  In the present case no amount in excess of        Rs.2,91,405/- has been paid and the question of the complainant being entitled to the possession does not arise.

7]             The OPs have no where mentioned in Annexure C-1 as to when the construction would commence and when it would be completed.  Knowing fully well that these dates are not certain and if the complainant had paid only 10% of the price of the flat, no directions can be issued to the OP to start construction.  The raising of construction would depend on the agreement between the parties and, when the offer made by the OP through Annexure C-1 has been accepted by the complainant as it is, it cannot be amended by this Forum.

8]             The contention of the OP is that they have since long started the process of raising the construction for which various formalities were to be completed.  They claim to have obtained clearance from various authorities, revised the lay out plan and have obtained environment clearance.  It therefore cannot be said if the OPs are sitting ideal or have not done anything after obtaining the amount from the complainant. It is true that the OPs are slack in this matter and should have completed the formalities promptly, so as to build confidence in the general public instead of eroding it by their delaying tactics.

9]             One Gautam Munjal filed CWP number 9458 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which was decided by the Hon’ble High Court on 13.10.09, the copy of the order is Annexure R-4. Since the matter had already been taken up before the Hon’ble High Court, where the Counsel for the OP has under taken to hold draw of lots within 6 months, we are of the opinion that these parallel proceeding should not be continued.  If the complainant has any grievances, he may proceed against the OP, as was done in Annexure R-4.

10]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and there is no merit in this complaint.  The same is accordingly dismissed.

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