Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/454/2016

Kamarur Zaman Molla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Satinder Kumar Rana

07 Jul 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/454/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21/06/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	07/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Kamarur Zaman Molla S/o Sh. A.B. Molla, R/o H.No.2062-C Sector 63, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

[1]  Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh – 160009, through its Chairman.

 

[2]  AXIS Bank, Sector 17-B, LIC of India, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Satinder Kumar Rana, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Indresh Goel, Advocate.
For OP NO.2	:	Sh. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Manager (OP No.2 Ex-parte).

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant applied and was allotted Category ‘C’ One Bed Room Flat in sub-category ‘Defence Personnel’ under the Self Financing Housing Scheme-2008, Sector 63, Chandigarh on lease hold basis. The Complainant chose to make lump sum payment as per Note ii of Clause 3 of the Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter (ACDL) dated 12.12.2011 and deposited an amount of Rs.15,44,170/- (total price of the Unit Rs.17,15,744/- minus Rs.1,71,574/- initial deposit = Rs.15,44,170/-) on 12.01.2012 with a request to intimate any deficiency in payment. The Opposite Party No.1 did not intimate any deficiency in payment for ½ years and out of the blue directed the Complainant to deposit outstanding dues without specifying the amount. The Complainant tried to contact the various officials of the Opposite Party No.1, but no one could clarify how much amount was due on what ground. Subsequently, on 09.09.2013, under threat of cancellation of the flat, the Complainant further deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Opposite Party No.1. It has been averred that after 2 ¾ years of payment of lump sum amount and exhausted communication, the Opposite Party No.1 had taken a decision on 05.09.2014 that for delay in making lump sum payment beyond 30 days, the interest given under Clause 5 of the ACDL would be applicable. It has been alleged that the Units were not completed till September, 2015 and after submitting the necessary documents, physical possession of the allotted Unit was given on 30.10.2015. It has been urged that the Complainant vide letter dated 10.06.2015 requested the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest on excess amount and also to make payment of delay in delivery of possession @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. w.e.f. 12.01.2012, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 05.12.2016.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has stated that the Complainant has filed the Complaint belatedly as the housing scheme in question was floated in the year 2008 and the Complainant was allotted the dwelling unit in 2010 and the Complainant received the ACDL in the year 2011 containing all the terms & conditions of the scheme and mode of payment. It has been pleaded that the Complainant did not adhere to the timely payment plan and hence had to pay interest on the delayed payment as per the terms and conditions of the ACDL. Later on the Board had decided to relax the charging of interest and limited it to be charged after a period of 30 days and as such a refund of Rs.1,12,496/- has already been paid back to the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 has been controverted.

 

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

 

6.     We have heard the Sh. Satinder Kumar Rana, Ld. Counsel for Complainant, Sh. Indresh Goel, Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and Sh. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No.2 and also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.     In the present case, on perusal of ACDL (Annexure C-4), we find that there is a condition no.3(ii), which stipulates that in case full payment of Dwelling Unit is made within 30 days from the date of issue of ACD letter then no interest will be charged. On perusal of Annexure C-33, we find that the Complainant had made the payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the ACD letter as stipulated therein. Further, from Annexure C-23, we find that an interest of Rs.23,163/- has been charged on delayed payment by the Opposite Party No.1, which is to our mind should not have been charged as the entire amount of the dwelling unit, as demanded, was paid within the stipulated period, so Opposite Party No.1 is liable to refund the said amount to the Complainant. Non-refund of the said amount to the Complainant certainly resulted in immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 cannot escape its liability and is, therefore, liable to refund the said amount to the complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.

 

8.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is 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 Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

 

[a]  To refund the excess charged amount (penal interest) of Rs.23,163/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

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

Announced

07^th July, 2017                                  Sd/-     

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                         Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER