Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/264/2017

Dharmender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Kapil Sharma

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	264 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	28.03.2017
Date of Decision	:	29.11.2018

 

1. Dharmender Singh son of Late Shri Vijay Singh, resident of House No.2151, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.
2. Riya Negi D/o Dharmender Singh, resident of House No.2151, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh, through her legal and natural guardians, Dharmender Singh.
3. Jiya Negi, D/o Dharmender Singh, resident of House No.2151, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh, through her legal and natural guardians, Dharmender Singh.

Through their Attorney Sh.Madan Singh S/o Late Sh.Daulat Singh #2151, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

….Opposite party

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Sh.Kapil Sharma, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                The complainants have filed this complaint, seeking refund of amount of Rs.10,18,718/- paid to the opposite party, towards interest/penalty, in respect of one Bed Room flat bearing no.2308-D, Sector 63, Chandigarh, which was transferred in their name, from the name of Parbha Kumari, wife of complainant no.1 and mother of complainants no.2 and 3 (her legal heirs), as she had expired on 21.02.2009. It is the case of the complainants that the said flat was booked by Parbha Kumari on 29.04.2008, for which she had paid an amount of Rs.1,71,574/- towards earnest money. She died in an accident on 21.02.2009 and thereafter, when the complainants applied to the opposite party for transfer of the said flat, in their favour, being legal heirs of Parbha Kumari, it took a long time to do so. Transfer of the flat, was, ultimately, made in favour of the complainants only on 23.09.2014. It was pleaded that on account of non-transfer of flat, in favour of the complainants, complainant no.1 could not obtain loan from the Bank, to make payment of remaining amount towards price of the said flat. On the other hand, the opposite party started demanding payment alongwith delayed interest from the complainants. It was pleaded that since the opposite party kept on issuing show cause notices to complainant no.1, to pay delayed interest on the amount due, failing which, allotment of the flat could have been cancelled, as such, under compelling circumstances, complainant no.1 had paid the same. Various representations made in the matter, by the complainants, requesting the opposite party, not to charge interest aforesaid, did not yield any result. It was stated that possession of the flat was handed over to the complainants only on 20.11.2015 and that too, after receiving interest on alleged delayed payments, whereas, as stated above, delay, if any, was on the part of the opposite party and not the complainants. It was averred that very high rate of interest has been charged by the opposite party. However, the case of the complainants did not fall within the purview of Clause 5 of the Acceptance letter dated 13.12.2011, as it was a case, where the original allottee had expired and thereafter, certain time ought to have been consumed, for transfer of the flat, in question, in the name of legal heirs, after completing the paper formalities. By alleging that the aforesaid act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in providing service and also adoption of unfair trade practice, the present complaint has been filed by the complainants, seeking refund of amount paid by them, towards interest/penalty; compensation for mental agony etc.

2.         The opposite party filed written reply, wherein, it was admitted that Smt.Parbha Kumari, (now deceased), wife of complainant no.1 and mother of complainants no.2 and 3 applied for allotment of a flat, under the scheme named ‘General Self Financing Housing Scheme-2008’, wherein she was declared successful, in the draw of lots held on 10.11.2008 and was issued registration letter dated 04.08.2009. It was averred that since complainant no.1 supplied information to the opposite party that Smt.Parbha Kumari,  expired on 21.02.2009, as such, vide letter dated 07.05.2012, he was asked to furnish indemnity bonds and agreement on judicial stamp paper and also to deposit publication charges of Rs.3320/- to enable the opposite party to proceed further in the matter. However, in the first instance, the said letter was received back undelivered on 12.05.2012, yet, the same was delivered to new address of the complainants, through Process Server. Thereafter, complainant no.1 was again requested to furnish Indemnity Bonds and Agreement and also to deposit Rs.3320/- on account of publication charges. Documents received in the office of the opposite party on 27.08.2013, were not found to be in order, as complainant no.1 failed to mention name of other legal heirs of Parbha Kumari, (now deceased). Vide letter dated 09.04.2014, complainant no.1 was again requested to furnish fresh Indemnity Bonds and Agreement with correct particulars, which was done by him only on 25.08.2014. Thereafter, the flat in question was transferred in favour of the complainants vide letter dated 23.09.2014. Vide letter dated 24.09.2014, the complainants were requested to deposit 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd half yearly installments amounting to Rs.4,81,408/- each, in accordance with terms and conditions of the Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter in the account of the opposite party. The complainants deposited the said amount on 28.10.2014, 18.04.2015 and 23.05.2015. It was pleaded that since the complainants failed to deposit the installments, as per schedule of payment, as such, they were liable to pay interest/penalty. On receiving the due amount, from the complainants, allotment letter in respect of the flat, in question, was issued on 23.10.2015 and possession thereof was delivered  to them, vide letter dated 20.11.2015. Request made by the complainants vide letter dated 09.02.2016, for waving interest on delayed payments from 13.12.2011 was rightly rejected by the opposite party vide letter dated 10.04.2017.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in providing service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, request was made to dismiss the complaint.
3.         In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and controverted those, contained in written version of the opposite party.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their case.
5.         The contesting parties raised arguments, in tune of the facts narrated above.
6.         We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.
7.         The fact regarding registration of flat, in question, in favour of Smt.Parbha Kumari vide letter dated 04.08.2009;  her death on 21.02.2009; intimation regarding her death to the opposite party; allotment of the said flat in her favour on 07.04.2010; issuance of Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter dated 13.12.2011, whereby demand of Rs.2,57,362/-  was raised; receipt of letter dated 30.12.2011 for transfer of registration of the said flat in favour of legal heirs of Smt.Parbha Kumari (now deceased) and issuance of letter dated 14.04.2013 by the opposite party to complainant no.1 for furnishing the indemnity bond, agreement etc. so that registration of the said flat can be transferred in favour of the complainants,  is not disputed between the parties.

                As such, the moot question which needs to be adjudicated is, as to from which date, the opposite party was entitled to recover interest from the complainants, on the amount to be paid towards sale consideration of the said flat. It is on record that vide letter dated 08.06.2009 Annexure C-3, complainant no.l had informed  the opposite party that since her wife Parbha Kumari original allottee died in an accident on 21.02.2009, as such, allotment of the said flat be transferred in the name of her nominees.  However, despite the above fact, it is evident from record that the opposite party kept on sending letters in the name of Parbha Kumari, deceased, till 13.12.2011. As such, complainant no.1 vide letter dated 30.12.2011, Annexure C-7, again intimated about death of Parbha Kumari and requested the opposite party, for transfer of registration and allotment rights of the flat, in question, in favour of her legal heirs.  It is also not disputed that the opposite party, for the first time, vide letter dated 07.05.2012 Annexure OP-5 only, directed complainant no.1 to furnish various documents, such as indemnity bond, agreement on judicial stamp paper etc., to enable it to proceed further in the matter. As such, it is crystal clear that despite the fact that intimation regarding death of Parbha Kumari was given by complainant no.1 to the opposite party vide letter dated 08.06.2009 Annexure C-3, and also vide the said letter, request was made to transfer the said flat, in favour of her legal heirs, it (opposite party), for the first time i.e. after about three years, vide letter dated 07.05.2012, asked complainant no.1, to provide documents, which were necessary for transfer of the flat, in question. Thus, there was huge delay on the part of the opposite party, at that stage. Thereafter, it is also an admitted fact that the documents submitted by complainant no.1 to the opposite party, were not in order as the name of legal heirs Miss Riya and Miss Jiya Negi,  daughters of Parbha Kumari were not found mentioned therein, as a result whereof, the same (documents) were resubmitted by complainant no.1, ultimately, on 25.08.2014 vide letter Annexure C-13, whereafter, the flat, in question, was transferred in the name of the complainants, vide letter dated 23.09.2014, Annexure C-14. Thereafter, it is also an admitted fact that the opposite party levied delayed payment interest, on the remaining amount (three installments of Rs.4,81,408/- each), starting from 30.12.2011 onwards till its payment on 28.10.2014, 18.04.2015 and 23.05.2015 respectively.

                In our considered opinion, charging of delayed payment interest on the said amount from 13.12.2011 was not justified on the part of the opposite party, whereas, on the other hand, it should have levied the same from 07.06.2012, i.e. one month  after issuance of letter dated 07.05.2012 on which date, complainant no.1 was asked to provide documents, which were necessary for transfer of the flat, in question, but he did not supply complete documents,  resulting into delay in the matter. Before that date (07.06.2012), the opposite party had no right to claim any interest from the complainants, because delay, if any, was on its part, in not asking them (complainants) to provide necessary documents. The opposite party sat over the matter for about three years, on the letter dated 08.06.2009 Annexure C-3, whereby complainant no.1 informed it, about death of his wife Parbha Kumari on 21.02.2009. As such, the opposite party is held entitled to charge interest from the complainants from 07.06.2012, i.e. one month after issuance of letter dated 07.05.2012 on which date, complainant no.1 was asked to provide documents, which were necessary for transfer of the flat, in question.

8.         Furthermore, it is also evident from the record that despite the fact that number of requests were made by complainant no.1 to the opposite party, to provide him calculation sheet pertaining to the interest levied on the amount, referred to above, it failed to do so. Every person has a right to be made aware of the details of the amount/interest, which is being recovered/demanded from him. By not providing calculation sheet pertaining to the interest levied on the amount, referred to above, the opposite party was deficient in providing service, thereby causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants, for which it is liable to compensate them.
9.         No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs, with following directions to the opposite party, as under:-

1. To refund the excess amount received by it, from the complainants, towards delayed payment interest, for the period from 13.12.2011 to 07.06.2012, alongwith interest @6% p.a.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.7,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, and also deficiency in providing service, as the opposite party, failed to provide calculation sheet to them, despite making several requests.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.7,000/- to the complainants.

11.         The order be complied within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @9% p.a., from the date of default, and interest @9% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing this complaint, till realization.
12.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

29.11.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Rg