Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/74/2016

Dilshad Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bardwaj

07 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/74/2016
Date of Institution	:	02/02/2016
Date of Decision	:	07/06/2016

 

 

Dilshad Paul S/o Sh. S.W. Paul, resident of House No.184, Ground Floor, Category-II, Sector 55,Chandigarh.

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	DR.MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Benny Thomas, Counsel for Opposite Party.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

1.         Sh. Dilshad Paul, Complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Chandigarh Housing Board, (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that even after retaining the amount of Rs.85,905/- with it for a period of 06 years the Opposite Party has failed to pay any interest thereupon, despite a number of visits and repeated requests made by him.

                The Complainant has averred that for the purpose of transferring the Dwelling Unit No.184, Ground Floor, Category-II, Sector 55, Chandigarh, which was purchased by him on G.P.A. basis from its original allottee - Sh. Waryam Singh S/o Sh. Goma Ram, he had deposited a sum of Rs.85,905/- with the Opposite Party towards transfer fee on 6.8.2008, along with other requisite documents. It was after a lapse of 04 years that on the asking of the Opposite Party the Complainant withdrew his transfer request on 26.03.2013 being not covered under the G.P.A. Transfer Policy. Thereafter, the Complainant received a Cheque for an amount of Rs.85,905/- towards refund of the deposited amount from the Opposite Party on 26.07.2014, which was encashed by him on 04.08.2014. Later on, when the Opposite Party had started making transfers on the basis of G.P.A., the Complainant got his Dwelling Unit transferred in his name on 1.10.215 by paying the requisite processing fee. Afterwards, the Complainant made a request to the Opposite Party on 13.10.2015 for payment of interest on amount of Rs.85,905/- from 6.8.2008 till 4.8.2014. The Complainant even visited the office of the Opposite Party a number of times, but the Opposite Party has not paid the interest to him. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         In its written reply, Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant had himself submitted an application for withdrawal of his request for transfer of property under G.P.A. transfer policy and accordingly, the transfer fee amounting to Rs.85,905/- was refunded to him vide Cheque dated 07.07.2014, which was eventually encashed by him. Later, on applying afresh under G.P.A. Policy and after completing all the formalities, the dwelling unit in question was transferred in the name of the Complainant on 01.10.2015. It has been asserted that after getting the dwelling unit transferred, the Complainant vide his request dated 13.10.2015 requested the Opposite Party to pay interest on transfer fee earlier deposited by him for the period from 06.08.2008 till 07.07.2014. The Opposite Party after considering his request informed him vide letter dated 19.2.2016 that transfer case was treated as withdrawn on his own request and transfer fee so deposited by him was also refunded to him, as such the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any interest on it. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
5.         It is evident from Annexure C-5 that the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.85,905/- with Opposite Party on 06.08.2008 for the purpose of transferring his Dwelling Unit which was purchased on G.P.A. basis from its original allottee. Annexure C-10 dated 26.03.2013 is the request by the Complainant to the Opposite Party for withdrawal of his document of G.P.A. transfer case, with specific mention that he wants to withdraw only his document and not the amount deposited with the Opposite Party. Annexure C-17 is a Cheque dated 07.07.2014, issued by the Opposite Party, in favour of the Complainant towards the refund of the amount already deposited i.e. Rs.85,905/-.  The key allegation of the Complainant is that since the Opposite Party has refunded the aforesaid amount of Rs.85,905/-, without any interest, so it was deficient in rendering proper services to him.
6.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that the Complainant himself submitted an application for withdrawal of his request for transfer of property under G.P.A. transfer Policy, hence the transfer fee amounting to Rs.85,905/- was refunded to him vide Cheque dated 07.07.2014. Therefore, it is not deficient in providing services to the Complainant.
7.         After careful perusal of the file, it is evident from Annexure C-10 that the Complainant himself withdrew his request for the transfer of his Dwelling Unit and at that time he himself voluntarily kept the money with the Opposite Party and there was no assurance from the Opposite Party for the payment of interest. So, the Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to claim the interest from the Opposite Party. No fault, therefore, can be found with the Opposite Party as the money was kept as per the request of the Complainant. We are of the opinion that the Complainant might have thought it better to keep the money with the Opposite Party to get the transfer of his Dwelling Unit as and when the Transfer Policy would have been operational. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   

9.

Announced

07/06/2016                                                       

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”