BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complaint Case No : 185 of 2004 Date of Institution : 20.05.2004 Date of Decision : 22.06.2011 1] Sunita Rani w/o Ravinder Jaitely, R/o H.No. 2518, Sec.44, Chandigarh. 2] Harpal Singh, R/o H.No. 328-B, Sector 26, Chandigarh. 3] Jasbir Singh, R/o H.No. 3349, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. 4] Shiv Narian Gupta, R/o Booth No.16, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh. 5] Baldev Singh, R/o H.No. HE-13, Ph-I, Mohali. 6] Anup Kumar, R/o H.No. 3270, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. 7] Amarjit Kaur, R/o H.No. 1912, Sec. 34-C, Chandigarh. 8] Lakhwinder Singh, R/o H.No. 1912, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. 9] Ramrik Singh, R/o H.No. 1912, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. 10] Ranjit Singh, R/o H.No. 572, Ph-2, Mohali. 11] Rajinder Bajwa, R/o H.No.18, Sec.15-A, Chandigarh. 12] Harjit Singh, R/o H.No. 2236, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. 13] Balbir Singh, R/o H.No. 2236, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. 14] Balwinderjit Kaur, R/o H.No.356, Ph-2, Mohali. 15] Motia Jain, R/o H.No. 3350, Sec.45-D, Chandigarh. 16] Hari Parkash, R/o H.No. 1575, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh. 17] Sham Lal Vashist, R/o H.No. 1113, Sec.15-B, Chandigarh. 18] Harinder Singh, R/o H.No. 303, Sec.33-A, Chandigarh. 19] Surinder Kaur, R/o H.No. 332, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. 20] Sanjeev Aggarwal, R/o H.No.7, Sec. 28-A, Chandigarh. 21] Simarjit Kaur, R/o H.No.3, Police Colony, Sec.34, Chandigarh. 22] Vinay Amba, R/o H.No. 367, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. 23] Asha Gupta, R/o H.No. 679, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. 24] Sarabjit Bhullar, R/o H.No. 3294, Sec.23-D, Chandigarh. 25] Vinod Sharma, R/o H.No. 3268, Sector 46-c, Chandigarh. 26] L.C. Bali, R/o H.No. 584, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. 27] Ram Nath, R/o H.No. 878, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. 28] Ravinder Kaur, R/o H.No. 2021, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. 29] Rajinder Singh, R/o H.No. 211, Phase XI, Mohali. 30] Darshan Singh, R/o H.No. 1726, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. 31] B.R. Saini, R/o H.No. 606, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh. 32] Raghbir Kaur, R/o H.No.2234, Sec.19-D, Chandigarh. 33] Jatinder Kaur, R/o 3269, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. 34] Charanjit Kaur, R/o H.No.1327, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh. 35] Om Parkash, R/o H.No.65, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh. 36] Arun Kumar, R/o H.No. 1098, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh. 37] Kulbir Singh, R/o H.No. 2955-A, Sec.20-C, Chandigarh. 38] Mohan Lal, R/o H.No. 3565, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. 39] Pritam Singh, R/o H.No.40, Police Colony, Sector , Chd. 40] Baldev Singh, R/o Village Buterla. 41] Prithpal Singh, R/o H.No.3370, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. 42] Sarup Singh, R/o H.No. 2524-A, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. 43] Santosh Kanta, R/o H.No. 3217, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. 44] Ramandev, R/o H.No. 2459-A, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh. 45] Darshana Devi, R/o H.No. 2071, Sec. 27-C, Chandigarh. 46] Rachna Pathank, R/o H.No. 82, Sector 21, Chandigarh. 47] Gurjinder Singh, R/o H.No. 3104, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. 48] Subhash Kalia, R/o SCO No.69, Sector 26, Chandigarh. 49] Amrit Lal, R/o H.No. 2492, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. 50] Ashwani Kumar, R/o H.No.2072, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. 51] Yogesh Kumar, R/o H.No.1306-A, Sec.20-B, Chandigarh. 52] Jastinder Singh, R/o H.No. 2515/1, Sec. 44-C, Chandigarh. 53] Subhash Chander, R/o H.No. 541, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. 54] Jaswant Singh, R/o H.No. 3093/1, Sector 44-D,Chandigarh. 55] Vipin Narang, R/o H.No. 2515/1, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. 56] Didar Singh, R/o H.No.1657, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. 57] Ajit Singh, R/o H.No. 133, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. 58] Bachi Ram, R/o H.No.3137, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh. 59] Baljinder Singh, R/o H.No. 1582, Colony No.5, Chandigarh. 60] Tilak Raj, R/o H.No. 1092, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh. 61] Sham Lal, R/o H.No. 3250/1, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. 62] Fauza Singh, R/o H.No. 440, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. 63] Ajay Mahajan, R/o H.No. 1467, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. 64] Jatinder Kumar, R/o H.No. 118, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. 65] Labh Singh, R/o H.No. 1308, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh. 66] Ashwini Sharma, 111, Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra, Chandigarh. 67] Ranjit Singh, R/o H.No. 2762, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. 68] Amrik Singh, R/o H.No. 258, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh. 69] Bhajan Ram, R/o H.No. 3/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. 70] Sanjay Jain, R/o H.No. 1078, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. 71] Ashok Kumar, R/o H.No.5, Karsan Colony, Near Ram Darbar, Chd. 72] Kavita Tuli, R/o H.No. 2317/2, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. 73] Shanker Nath, R/o H.No.1074, Sector 24-B, Chandigarh. 74] Prem Sharma w/o Late Sh. M.M. Rattan, R/o H.No. 5179-B, Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh. ….…Complainants V E R S U S 1] Chandigarh Housing Board, through its Chairman, Sector 9, Chandigarh. 2] Finance Secretary, U.T. Administration, U.T. Secretariat, Chandigarh. 3] Popular Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., H.No. 2515, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. .…..Opposite Parties CORAM: Sh.P.D. GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER Argued by: Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Counsel for Complainants. OPs No. 1 & 2 already ex-parte. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The brief factual backdrop culminating into the present complaint is that the Complainants became the Member of the OP No.3 Society long back in the year 1988/ 1989/ 1990 respectively, by depositing the requisite fee. With the efforts of the aforesaid Society, Chandigarh Administration decided to allot the land for the construction of houses and all the Complainants were declared eligible and were also duly informed by OP No.3 Society. Accordingly, the Complainants deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- for Category ‘A’ and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for Category ‘B’ respectively, with OP No.3, on different dates, as mentioned in chart Annexure C-1, to complete 10% earnest money for the cost of land, which was worked out @ Rs.750/- per sq. yard. The above said amount was deposited by the OP No. 3 to OP No. 1 on behalf of Complainants. It was averred that thereafter, a dispute arose between OP No.1 and OP No.3 and the matter was taken to the Hon’ble High Court by the Society in a joint Writ Petition being CWP No. 1454 of 1992, which was dismissed, vide order dated 18.12.96 and in compliance with interim order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 11.05.92, the OP No.1 gave opportunity to OP No.3 and its members to deposit the balance 15% of the price, along with 18% interest p.a. upto the date of court’s order. Ultimately, the society was allowed by the OP No.1, vide letter dated 08.12.97, to deposit the balance 15% price along with interest @18% p.a. upto the date of High Court’s order i.e. 18.12.96. Accordingly, the Complainants deposited Rs.44,750/- for Category ‘A’ and Rs.31,170/- for Category ‘B’ flats respectively, as per detailed given in Annexure C-1. The aforesaid amount was deposited by the Complainants with the understanding that the Board would allot land to the Society @ Rs.750/- per sq. yard. It was alleged that the Complainants were shocked to know that the OP No.3 Society had received letter dated 18.04.2000, from OP No.1, intimating that the price of the land has been enhanced from Rs.750/- per sq. yard to Rs.2500/- per sq. yard. The Complainants were asked to deposit the difference of price at enhanced rates to complete the 25% cost of the land at the revised rates. Against such an arbitrary enhancement, the Complainants in the month of April/ May/ June, 2000 respectively, made different applications to OP No.3, requesting therein to refund the amount of Rs.44,750/- or Rs.31,170/-, as the case may be, along with upto date interest, which had been deposited by them during 6/92 and 2/98. In response thereto, OP No.1, vide letters dated 07.08.2001, 29.12.2001 and 23.02.2001, made refund of different amounts to OP No.3 on account of refund of the amount deposited by the different members of the Society. In case of Category ‘A’ amount of Rs.36,300/- has been refunded and in category ‘B’ Rs.25,930/- has been refunded to the different members. It was further alleged that OP No.1 has refunded only the principal amount of 25% deposited by the Complainants, but the amount of Rs.19,817/- and Rs.13,802/-, charged from them as interest for the period of delay of payment of 15% price, has not been refunded. Against this, the Complainants made representations to OP No.3 to refund the said amount, in response to which OP No.3 replied that it was unable to refund the money, as the amount has been retained by the OP No.1 and the members were advised to approach OP No.1 directly for the refund. Hence, this complaint. 2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs, seeking their version of the case. 3] OP No.1, in its reply, pleaded that it had no privity of contract with the Complainants and as such, it had denied the status of the Complainants as a consumer of the services provided by the Board. It was admitted that the Society was allotted land measuring 12570.038 sq.yds., vide allotment letter No. 1209, dated 24.1.2002 in respect of its eligible members. It was submitted that as per record, OP No.3 Society deposited Rs.24,44,030/- upto 1.6.92 with answering OP. The Society had shown deposited Rs.12,100/- for category ‘A’ and Rs.9,075/- for category ‘B’ and Rs.7,260/- for category ‘C’. It was admitted that the Society deposited a sum of Rs.55,77,550/-, (balance of 15%) to complete 25% earnest money of the tentative cost of the land @ Rs.750/- per sq. yard, along with 18% interest, as per the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 18.12.1996. While demanding balance 15% of the earnest money as tentative cost of the land, it was made clear to the Society vide letter dated 08.12.1997 that the balance amount of the premium shall be determined at the rate applicable at the time of actual allotment of the land to the Society. The Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 1.2.2000 revised the rate of land to Rs.2500/- per sq. yd. on leasehold basis and Rs.2850/- per sq. yd. on freehold basis vide notification dated 15.5.2001. Accordingly, on the directions of the Chandigarh Administration, the Society was asked to pay the difference to complete 25% cost of the land vide letter dated 11.4.2000. The society deposited 25% of the cost of the land on the revised rate in respect of the eligible willing members and the land was allotted to the society vide allotment letter No. 1209 dated 24.1.2002 at the rate of Rs.2850/- per sq. yard on freehold basis. It was pleaded that the Complainants at their own opted to withdraw from the Scheme and requested their society for refund of the earnest money. In pursuance of the directions conveyed by the Finance Secretary/ Chief Administration, Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 9.3.2000 and 13.6.2000, the interest paid by the Society was not to be refunded, if any member of the Society or the Society itself sought refund. Accordingly, OP No.1. has made refund of the principal amount after retaining the interest element paid on the delayed payment of remaining 15% of the earnest money to all non willing members. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. Subsequently, after filing reply and evidence, nobody turned up on behalf of OP No.1; hence it was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.4.2011. 4] OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.4.2011. 5] Learned counsel for the Complainant has made a statement that the name of OP No.3 be deleted from the array of OPs. In view of this, the name of OP No.3 was ordered to be struck of vide order dated 27.4.2011. 6] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 7] We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record. 8] The sole point to be determined by this Forum is that whether the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.19,817/- and Rs.13,802/- (charged from the complainants as interest for the period of delay of payment of 15% price), along with interest @ 8% p.a. as per the judgment of our own Hon'ble State Commission passed in Appeal Case No.382 of 2002 titled as Chandigarh Housing Board Versus Avtar Singh and Others, decided on 02.12.2003 which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme court vide its order dated 22.09.2010. The answer to this is in affirmative. 9] The OP-1 has raised the plea that in pursuance of the directions conveyed by the Finance Secretary/ Chief Administration, Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 9.3.2000 and 13.6.2000, the interest paid by the Society was not to be refunded, if any member of the Society or the Society itself sought refund and such OP No.1 has made refund of the principal amount after retaining the interest element paid on the delayed payment of remaining 15% of the earnest money to all non willing members. The said defence goes to the ground in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case titled Chandigarh Housing Board Versus Avtar Singh and Others reported in IV(2010) CPJ-9(SC). The operative part of the order is reproduced for the purpose of convenience:- “The issue which remains to be examined is whether the Chandigarh Administration and the Board were justified in refusing to refund 18% interest paid by the members of the Societies in view of the observations made by the High Court. The consideration of this issue needs to be prefaced with a comment that the 1952 Act and the 1973 Rules do not provide for levy of 18% interest on the delayed payment of earnest money or a portion thereof. The 1991 Scheme also did not provide for levy of such interest. Notwithstanding this, the members of the Societies had to pay 18% interest because while dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that the Societies who had deposited 10% of the sale consideration and found eligible for allotment or have been allotted sites would be liable to pay the balance 15% with a further interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However, there was nothing either in the interim or the final order of the High Court from which it can be inferred that the Chandigarh Administration or for that reason the Board was authorised or empowered to refuse refund of 18% interest to the members who did not seek allotment of flat. If the final order passed by the High Court is read in conjunction with interim order dated 11.5.1992, it becomes clear that the Societies were to deposit the remaining amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum only if they were to accept allotment of flats under the Scheme. Although, the writ petitions were filed by the Societies, the language of the interim order passed by the High Court shows that the learned Judges were thinking of imposing liability of 18% interest only on those members who were to accept allotment of flats to be constructed by the Societies. The members of the Societies did not get an opportunity to accept the allotment because even after deposit of full earnest money and 18% interest, the Board did not allot land to the Societies on which they could construct dwelling units/flats. The Finance Secretary misinterpreted the orders of the High Court and issued wholly arbitrary and unjust directive to the Board not to refund 18% interest to the members of the Societies who had applied for refund before allotment of land by the Board. In our view, the Chandigarh Administration and the Board had no right to refuse refund of 18% interest and absence of direct challenge to Clause 11 of memo dated 9.3.2000 was not sufficient to legitimize indirect forfeiture of that amount and the State Commission did not commit any error by directing refund of the amount of interest by treating it to be a case of deficiency in service and the National Commission rightly declined to interfere with the order of the State Commission. 33. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The Board is directed to refund the amount due to the complainants within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment. Within that period, the Board shall also pay litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the complainants”. 10] As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP-1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.19,817/- and Rs.13,802/- paid as 18% interest on 15% of the earnest money on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court with further direction to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till payment to the respective complainants from the respective date of deposits after adjusting the amount, if already paid, as the case may be. The OP-1 is also directed to pay Rs.20000/- to each of the complainant (in total Rs.14,80,000/-) as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.10000/- as costs of litigation. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 11] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 22.06.2011 | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D. Goel] | | | Member | President | ‘cm’ | | | |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | |
