Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/100/2019

Bhartendu Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	100 of 2019
Date of Institution	24.05.2019
Date of Decision	27.11.2019

Bhartendu Sood s/o Late Sh.Bhupinder Nath, aged 66, Residing at 231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.                   

                                                …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

Chairman Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB), Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                                ....Respondent/Opposite Party.

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:

Sh. Bhartendu Sood, appellant in person.

Sh. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for the respondent.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.05.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.665 of 2018.

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

 “ The case of the complainant is that he applied to Opposite Party on 2.6.2016 for transfer of ownership of Dwelling Unit No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh on the basis of GPA executed in the year 1995, under normal category.  It is averred that the complainant along with application has also deposited all the relevant documents as well as publication fee of Rs.10,000/- and processing Fee of Rs.3000/- with the Opposite Party.  It is also averred that after 16 month since the date of filing the application, the Opposite Party advised the complainant, vide letter dated 27.9.2017, for deposit of Transfer fee of Rs.1,99,944/- including GST @15% and Ground Rent of Rs.2051 plus GST @15%. The complainant sought the break-up of amount so claimed by the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not reply.  Late on, when the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party, he was told that the Transfer of ownership on the basis of GPA was discontinued vide Circular dated 19.12.2017 of Finance Department, UT, Chandigarh.  It is stated that during the period from 2.6.2016 to 30.9.2017, the Opposite Party cleared 298 applications for transfer under Tatkal and 98 application under normal category and as such gave preference to Tatkal applications instead of maintaining the balance.  It is stated that the complainant sent notice to Opposite Party to return back his original documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will deposited along with application, as well as the amount deposited with the application, but the Opposite Party neither returned the documents nor refunded the amount nor transferred the unit in the name of complainant.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.” 

 3.            The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the Opposite Party to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that due to heavy rush of transfer cases on GPA basis, the turn of application of the complainant came in the end of Sept., 2017 and accordingly, letter was sent to him for deposit of transfer fee of Rs,1,99,944/- which includes GST @Rs.30,500/-.  It is stated that GPA transfer request of all the applicants were dealt with in accordance with First In First Out method adopted by Opposite Party and the Tatkal cases have been dealt by another branch of Opposite Party.  It is submitted that a notice was received from Chandigarh Administration on 19.12.2017 vide which instructions were issued to Opposite Party to discontinue all kinds of transfer on GPA basis.  It is also submitted that Opposite Party never allowed any transfer on the basis of GPA against the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court and immediately discontinued the scheme on the receipt of notification from administration which was issued on the basis of order of Hon’ble Apex Court.  It is further submitted that Opposite Party never retained the documents of the complainant unnecessarily and returned the same to him vide Office letter No.1356, dated 22.11.2018 immediately after the complainant submitted the request letter to Opposite Party on 5.10.2018 vide Diary No.2524.  It is stated that the processing fee of Rs.3000/- and publication charges of Rs.10,000/- both are non-refundable as the board has processed the GPA transfer case of the applicant and the publication has also been  issued in the three leading newspapers.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”   

4.                The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. 

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the complainant and Counsel for the Opposite Party and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard the appellant and Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.             The appellant/Opposite Party has submitted that the Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case because if the appellant did not meet transfer conditions then why did it give publication in newspaper, demanded of transfer fee of Rs.1,99,944/- and withhold important documents like GPA, WILL etc. of the complainant. He further submitted that the respondent did not give break-up of demanded amount of Rs.1,99,944/-. He further submitted that the respondent/Opposite Party did not act on application for 16 months and only concentrated on TATKAL cases. He further submitted that it was the duty of the respondent/Opposite Party to return back the important documents to the complainant but it was in October, 2018 when the appellant had to finally give notice to the respondent to get back these documents. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order by refunding the amount of Rs.3,000/- (processing fee) and Rs.10,000/- (publication fee) alongwith interest & compensation etc.

10.           On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the negative. It is the admitted fact that the appellant/complainant applied to the Opposite Party for transfer of ownership of dwelling unit No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh on the basis of GPA executed in the year 1995 under normal category. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.13,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for publication fee and Rs.3,000/- for processing fee) to the Opposite Party. It is also the admitted fact that the Opposite Party requested the complainant vide letter dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure II) to deposit transfer fee of Rs.1,99,944/- and ground rent of Rs.2051/- for transfer of the aforesaid dwelling unit in his name but he failed to deposit the aforesaid amount. It is pertinent to mention here that after receipt of the aforesaid demand letter, the appellant/complainant sent a letter dated 22.10.2017 to the respondent/Opposite Party, which was received by Chandigarh Housing Board vide diary No.206863 dated 27.10.2017, to provide the detail/break-up of the transfer fee of Rs.1,99,944/- to enable him to examine the correctness but the Chandigarh Housing Board failed to give the said break-up to the appellant/complainant. It may be stated here that the said amount of Rs.1,99,944/- is very huge amount for a common man and it is the right of the applicant/consumer to demand break-up of the said amount at any time. Moreover, it was the duty of the Chandigarh Housing Board to mention the break-up in the letter, in which, it was demanded the amount of Rs.1,99,944/- from the appellant/complainant. It may be stated here that a notice was received from the Chandigarh Administration on 19.12.2017 vide which instructions were issued to the respondent/Chandigarh Housing Board to discontinue all kinds of transfer on GPA basis, as such, the respondent discontinued the scheme on receipt of the notification from Administration, which was issued on the basis of Hon’ble Apex Court. Even it was the elementary duty of the respondent/Chandigarh Housing Board to inform the appellant/complainant of the new development especially when his application was pending before the Chandigarh Housing Board for a long period but after the said development, the respondent did not return the important documents of the appellant/complainant like GPA, WILL and ‘Agreement to Sell’ etc. to him and after ten months when the appellant/complainant sent a notice to the Chandigarh Housing Board to get back the aforesaid documents, the same was returned. The said act of the respondent/Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service on its part and the appellant/complainant is certainly entitled for some compensation.

                With regard to return of fee is concerned, it may be stated here that the processing fee of Rs.3000/- and publication charges of Rs.10,000/- both are non-refundable as the board has processed the GPA transfer case of the applicant and publication has also been issued in three leading newspapers.

                So, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be modified to the extent. 

13.           In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is partly allowed. The order of the Forum is modified, in the following manner:-

(i)             The respondent/Opposite Party – Chandigarh Housing Board is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-  as compensation for mental agony, harassment to the appellant/complainant.

(ii)            If the order is not complied with, within the period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the compensation amount, aforesaid,  shall be payable by the respondent/Chandigarh Housing Board alongwith interest @9% per annum,  from the date of filing the complaint, till actual payment.

14.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

November 27^th,   2019.                      

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

                                                                MEMBER

 

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                MEMBER

 

rb