Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/183/2015

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

D.R. Kaith

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/183/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	24/03/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	02/11/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Jarnail Singh son of Sh. Atma Singh, resident of House No.1117, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

 

[2]  The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Amit Kaith, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant had applied for Category ‘A’ flat under ‘General Self Financing Housing Scheme-2008, Sector 63, Chandigarh (Acknowledgement Annexure C-1) and was declared successful in the draw of lot held on 7.4.2010. It has been averred that the Complainant was allotted Regn. No. GHS63-3BR-GLN-64. In compliance to the acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure C-2), he had made the entire payment of Rs.43,20,536/- on 16.04.2013 and nothing was due towards him (Payment Receipts Annexure C-3 to C-7). As per the Scheme, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver the possession of the flat as soon as they have accepted full cost of the flat. It has been alleged that the Complainant had made all the payment and had also completed all the formalities and had also executed all the documents as required by the Opposite Parties from time to time up to 16.04.2013, therefore, as per Clause XIII of the Scheme (Annexure C-8), he had become entitled for the possession on 16.04.2013, but till date Opposite Parties failed to hand over the possession of the flat to him. The Complainant is thus liable to pay interest with effect from 16.4.2013 at the same rate as they (OPs) had charged from him till the delivery of actual possession of flat. The Complainant also served a legal notice dated 12.09.2014 upon the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-9), which was duly replied by the Opposite Parties on 10.12.2014 (Annexure C-12), inter alia, stating that the possession of the flat shall be handed over to the Complainant on or before 31.03.2015.  It has been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, has not been redressed, left with no alternative, the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), has been filed before this Forum, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3.      Opposite Parties in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have stated that there was no promise or condition to handover the possession of the flat in the housing scheme after receipt of payment of last installment of the flat, therefore, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part in handing over the possession of the flat. It has been pleaded that the construction work of flats is linked with finance received from the installments of flats and it is only after payment of all the installments is paid and construction work is completed, the possession would be offered. It has been further stated that Clause XIII categorically binds the allottee to take the physical possession of the allotted flat as soon as the Complainant completed all the formalities and paid all the dues for allotment of flat, but there was no such term which suggest any promise or undertaking by the answering Opposite Parties to hand over the possession of the flat within some time frame. It has been asserted that the construction of flats is at final stages and very soon the Complainant would get the possession of the flat. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant, as well as Opposite Parties.

 

7.      The main grouse of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties did not hand over the physical possession of the dwelling unit, which the Complainant applied for, and was allotted to him.

 

8.      It has been noticed that during the pendency of the case, the Complainant has accepted the physical possession of the Dwelling Unit No.2045-C(3BR) in Block No.B-19, Sector 63, Chandigarh, from the Opposite Parties as per Annexure OP-5 and OP-6. Annexure OP-5 dated 29.09.2015 is the copy of the allotment letter issued to the Complainant and Annexure OP-6 is the possession letter dated 12.10.2015 which has been accepted by the Complainant.

 

9.      A careful perusal of acceptance-cum-demand letter (Annexure C-2) shows that it does not contain the time limit for the Opposite Parties to hand over the physical possession of the flat in question. But, still even after taking the full amount, admittedly, on 16.4.2013, the Opposite Parties gave physical possession after a period of more than two years on 12.10.2015. The Opposite Parties have, thus, utilized the amount deposited by the complainant for their use and must have got appreciation on the same. The complainant has certainly underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, for which he is entitled to be compensated, on account of deficiency, in rendering proper service, and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties. Since, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, for a sufficient long time, in our considered opinion, if compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, is granted to him, it would be reasonable, fair and adequate.

 

10.      So far as the question of interest on the total amount paid due to delay in handing over the physical possession by the Opposite Parties, is concerned, the Complainant has already taken the possession of the dwelling unit during the pendency of the case, without any protest. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once the Complainant has taken the physical possession of the dwelling unit from the Opposite Parties, he is not entitled to interest on the amounts paid, on the ground of delay and latches. Reliance placed on 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 136 (NC) and 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 586 (SC), by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant in support his claim, is misconstrued and misapplied. The ratio of the said rulings is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as the same are clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, no help can, thus, be drawn by the Counsel for the Complainant from the afore-cited rulings. However, the act of the Opposite Parties in delaying the matter of handing over the physical possession of the dwelling unit for more than two years, even after taking full payment, proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant. 

 

 

11.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 [a] To make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

12.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

13.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

02^nd November, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER