Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/76/2016

Jaspal Singh and Satwant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

31 May 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	76 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	20.10.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	31.05.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Jaspal Singh and Satwant Kaur, H.No.523, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh.  

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

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

 

….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant No.1 in person

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Benny Thomas, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainants have purchased Dwelling Unit No.297-B, Cat.I, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh from Smt.Neer Kamal, on the basis of registered General Power of Attorney as well as sale agreement, on 31.12.2004.  That after making the payment of Rs.1,10,270/- to the OP Board, in installment, the complainants applied for issuance of No Dues Certificate, which was issued on 21.12.2010 vide Ann.A.  Thereafter, the complainants applied for transfer of the said dwelling unit in their name and also deposited transfer fee of Rs.2,05,172/- vide Ann.B & C.  It is averred that the complainants also attended the personal interview on 29.8.2011, as directed by the OP.  However, the OP did not intimate about the transfer of the unit in the name of the complainants, hence they sought information under RTI, whereby the OP vide letter dated 7.10.2014 (Ann.D) informed that the Dwelling Unit No.297-B, Cat.I, cannot be transferred under GPA rule and with the same letter, the OP enclosed a cheque of Rs.2,05,172/- towards refund of transfer fee vide Ann.E. 

         It is pleaded that the OP kept the amount of Rs.2,05,172/- w.e.f. 28.6.2011 to 7.10.2014 i.e. for a period of 3 years 3 months & 10 days, but still did not pay the interest for said period to the complainants. The complainants made representation for the same to the OP, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The OP has filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case with regard to allotment of Dwelling Unit in question to Smt.Neer Kamal; issuance of No Dues Certificate in respect of the said unit; complainants having applied for transfer of said dwelling unit in their name on the basis of GPA; deposit of transfer fee of Rs.2,05,172/- by the complainants and refund thereof through cheque dated 29.9.2014 along with letter dated 7.10.2014.

         It is stated that the request of the complainants for transfer of the dwelling unit in question has been considered/examined and the same cannot be acceded to as it is not covered under GPA Transfer Policy of the Board and the transfer fee amounting to Rs.2,05,172/- was refunded through cheque dated 29.9.2014 along with letter dated 07.10.2014.  It is also stated that the case of the complainants was kept pending as per orders dated 29.02.2012 of Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board according to which only those GPA transfer cases were to be processed where the transfer of Dwelling Unit has taken place after the initial lock-in-period of 5 years and the GPA has been executed before 11.10.2011. It is further stated that the complainants themselves did not sought refund of the transfer fee, however, the OP, in the interest of justice, is willing to pay interest, at the rate of saving bank account, subject to TDS deduction. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainants thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OP.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person and ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainants through the present complaint have demonstrated in, an unambiguous term that in the year 2011, he along with his wife had jointly moved an application for transfer of allotment of Dwelling Unit No.297-B, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh, through their application dated 23.3.2011, in pursuance of which a No Due Certificate as well as an amount of Rs.2,05,172/- as transfer fee too was paid through Axis Bank, but however, the allotment of dwelling unit in question was neither transferred in the name of the complainants nor any information was provided about the unwarranted delay of nearly 3 years & 3 months by the Opposite Party. The complainants have even resorted to the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, to seek information about such inordinate delay in dealing with their application dated 5.5.2014. Copy of the said application dated 5.5.2014 is annexed as Ann.E with their rejoinder.  The OP instead of replying to the RTI application, refunded the amount of Rs.2,05,172/-, deposited by the complainants as transfer fee, on 7.10.2014 vide cheque dated 19.9.2014, which the complainant received under protest, seeking interest on the amount for the period the said money remained with the OP.

 

7]       The complainants have preferred the present complaint for the redressal of their grouse against the OP, which was duly raised before the OP and remained unaddressed till the filing of the complaint, seeking the quoted relief. 

 

8]       The Opposite Party having admitted to the fact with regard to the transfer fee having remained in its custody since the date of deposit i.e. 26.8.2011, but has explained that on the date of application for transfer of allotment in the name of the complainants, the complainants did not qualify as per the rules applicable at that point of time and as the Chandigarh Administration was in the process of taking comprehensive view of the matter, in order to decide the large number of such applications pending before the Opposite Party, the matter got delayed and that there was no mala fide intentions on the part of the Opposite Party.  Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on its part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  However, the OP has come forward to offer an interest at the savings bank rate out of goodwill gesture towards the complainants.

 

9]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that though the Opposite Party has quoted three basic reasons for the delay in refund of the deposited transfer fee to the complainants, namely, (a) allottee never applied for refund; (b) delay being attributed to Chandigarh Housing Board due to policy decision and not due to mala fide reason & (c) However, in the public interest and as per principles of natural justice, Chandigarh Housing Board is willing to pay interest at the rate of saving bank account subject to TDS deduction.

 

10]      The reply of the Opposite Party, which is duly supported with an affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar Jasrotia, Chief Accounts Officer of OP Board, but no other document has been placed on record by the OP in support of the three basic reasons as mentioned in their reply, namely, (i) the OP has failed to demonstrate that it was incumbent upon the complainants to seek refund of their deposited amount as per established rules of the Opposite Party, (ii) there is also no document on record to show that the Opposite Party was in the process of taking any policy decision with regard to such applications for transfer of allotment & (iii) the Opposite Party has not even come forward to at least bring a cheque of the interest amount, as per their own offer. 

 

11]      On the contrary, the Ann.E filed by the complainant along with their rejoinder, which is the RTI application dated 5.5.2014 filed before the Opposite Party asking it to disclose the reasons about such inordinate delay in taking a decision about the pending application of the complainant and also confronting the Opposite Party with the specific clause of Citizen’s Charter as available on the OP’s website declaring that such matters are to be taken up within the specified time period of 38 days,  clearly proves that the reasons for the delay mentioned in the reply of the OP, are not inconsonance with the facts and the record available with them, as no such document has come to light in support of their reply/version. Least of all, OP has not even admitted that there is an RTI application dated 5.5.2014 is pending with them and has remained unaddressed till date.  The lackadaisical attitude of the Opposite Party in dealing with the day-to-day matters of the General Public with crass respect to their own laid down procedures, as per Citizen’s Charter, certainly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 

 

12]      There was no occasion on the part of the Opposite Party to retain the transfer fee beyond a reasonable period say a month or two, if the complainants did not qualify, for such transfer, their case being pre-mature as per existing terms & conditions of the Opposite Party, the same should have been refunded promptly, leaving the complainants to pursue the matter as an when they qualified for it.

 

13]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

[a] To pay interest on the transfer fee of Rs.2,05,172/- from 28.7.2011 (i.e. after one month of deposit) till 7.10.2014, at the rate of 12% per annum;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall also be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum, on the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing the complaint till it is paid, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para [a] above.

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

 

Announced

31^st May, 2016                                                              Sd/-

                (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER 

 

                                                                                                                      

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.76 OF 2016

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 31st day of May, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member