Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/268/2023

KL MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

MEENA BANSAL

30 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/268/2023
Date of Institution	:	17.5.2023
Date of Decision	:	30/9/2024

 

1 K.L. Malhotra s/o ChamanLal

2 Pawan Malhotra s/o Sh. K.L. Malhotra

Both r/o H.No.2027-C, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

Complainants

Versus

 

1. Chandigarh Housing Board having its registered officer at 8. Jan Marg, Sector-9 Chandigarh through its Chairman. 2. Chandigarh Housing Board having its registered officer at 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9 Chandigarh through its Secretary.

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainants that the Chandigarh Housing Board had floated a scheme in Sector 63, Chandigarh for allotment of the houses in various categories. A dwelling unit no. 2027-C, category 3 BR in Sector 63, Chandigarh was originally allotted to Ms. Preety Arora w/o Vinod Arora r/o 1581, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh vide Allotment Letter no. HB(AO-1)- SO-IV/8474 dated 8.9.2015, who had taken possession of the dwelling unit on 9.10.2015. The above said property was purchased by complainants in the year 2019 for self-living as per the mutual transfer policy of the Board. Further No Objection Certificate (NOC) is required to be obtained from Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) in order to get execution of lease deed for transfer of the leasehold rights before the Sub Registrar, UT Chandigarh and on the basis of the NOC issued by the CHB, the deed of transfer of lease hold rights was executed in favour of the complainants by Sub Registrar Chandigarh  on 09.09.2019 during the validity period of the NOC. It is averred that  there was neither any specific time, days for transfer nor any mention of interest was there in the said NOC that the complainants are required to get the transfer fees deposited within the specified period. The necessary documents for transfer of the dwelling unit was submitted by the complainants to CHB vide diary no. 30342/2020/1 dated 14.12.2020. In response to this, a demand letter dated 15.01.2021 for payment of Rs.5, 60,000 along with processing fee of Rs.4720/- was issued to complainants vide letter no. HB-AO-111-2021/88876 dated 15.01.2021. Vide this letter, it was intimated to the complainants that as complainants had applied for transfer in locking period and Rs. 1,00,000/- as locking fees is applicable in this case. Therefore an illegal demand of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus GST @ 18% as locking period has also been raised by OPs. The complainants have written a letter to OPs requesting to issue the revised demand letter for transfer of property after reconsidering the demand by excluding the charges for lock in period which was otherwise but instead of considering the request the OPs again issued a letter No. HB-AO-111- 2021/7956 dated 22.06.2021 and demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- as lock-in period fee and also thereafter stated that this is last opportunity to deposit otherwise interest @ 12% on transfer fee shall be charged from the complainants. The complainant in order to avoid payment of any interest as stated in letter dated 22.06.2021, deposited the entire amount of
Rs.5,60,500 plus Rs. 4720/- ( which includes payment against transfer during lock in period) online on 5.07.2021 under protest well within the stipulated period of 15 days and also submitted the required documents. However, after deposit of the above amount the OPs demanded another amount of Rs. 118304 on account of delayed payment. In this letter, it was Clearly stated that now it has been decided in similar cases to charge the penal interest on account of delayed payment Whereas the payment was made  by the complainants within the period of 15 days stipulated by the CHB in their demand notices issued earlier.The complainants have raised objections to the said demand of the OPs and reply to objection letter dated 11.10.2021, the OPs issued letter NO. HB-AO-111-2021/190 dated 04.01.2022 lowered the interest rate at 6% and directed to deposit the amount of Rs.64496/-. Even the said demand was objected by the complainant and represented with the OPs however, the OPs did not consider the representation of the complainants and again issued a letter dated 21.03.2022 and asked the complainants to deposit Rs. 64496/- within fifteen days.  In order to avoid any further complications and keeping in view the delay being caused in transfer of the property where entire amount has already been paid to the OPs, the complainants deposited an amount of Rs. 64496/- under protest vide letter dated 27.06.2022. Thereafter vide letter dated 18.07.2022, the OPs finally issued a transfer letter in favour of complainants. It is averred that the Housing Board issued order dated 19.02.2016 in which it has been decided to waive off the condition of lock-in-period (5Years) for General Self Financing Housing Scheme Sector 63, Chandigarh and another order dated 14.03.2016 was issued in which it has been decided for deposit of a onetime amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh for every transfer for the General Self Financing Housing Scheme Sector 63 Chandigarh, in addition to all other charges/fees. It may be submitted here that in the aforesaid said letters/orders issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board, it has not been stated that amount would be paid by the subsequent purchasers. These orders have been passed in favour of seller waiving off condition of locking period of five years to sell the dwelling unit, the no objection certificate was issued to the complainants on 29.07.2019 and till the issuance of the NOC, there was no direct relation or liability on the part of the complainants and whatever liability accrued on account of any charges for transfer of dwelling unit during the lock in period, the said charges are required to be paid by the seller because waive off condition would apply only to seller. The complainant also sent legal notice to the OPs but with no result. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.  

2. The Opposite Parties in their reply while  admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the payment of Rs. One lakh demanded by the answering parties was for the removal of embargo created for not transferring the Dwelling Unit within a period of 5 years from the date of possession to the Original Allottee as per the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) and Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulation, 1979. The complainants have been granted concession for the transfer of the DU within 5 years otherwise it is barred under the Act of 1971 as stated above and further as per condition 10(ii) of the allotment letter dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure C 1). The present DU was allotted to the Original Allottee i.e., Preety Arora on lease hold basis and lease hold rights of the present DU still vests with the opposite parties/CHB being the lessor. The complainants purchased the present DU from the original allottee i.e. Preety Arosa and sought transfer of leasehold rights by filing application for the transfer of DU in their favour as per the policy of answering parties. The answering parties in pursuance of application gave NOC for the transfer of leasehold rights in the favour of complainants during lock-in period of 5 years and additional payment of one lakh was demanded for the transfer of the DU within 5 years within lock-in period. The complainants without any protest or reservation of rights had deposited the payment of Rs. 1 lakhs and now after the transfer of lease rights and execution of deed of transfer of lease hold rights in their favour on 09.09.2019 before the Sub-Registrar, UT Chandigarh, they cannot avoid the payment after taking the benefits out of the same. The complaint is not maintainable where the complaint sought the transfer of leasehold property as the title of the same vests with the Central Government being the owner and lessor of the DU. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Estate Officer and Anr. Versus Charanjit Kaur, 2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 96 has already held that that the Central Government, cannot be said to be a 'trader of a 'service provider' and where no such fees is charged for any such services then the Consumer fora has no jurisdiction to deal and adjudicate the matter. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the present Commission is barred in terms of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. Through the present complaint the complainant claiming refund of amount of Rs.1.00 lakh with GST which was paid by the complainants towards transfer fee and also  refund of amount of Rs.64496/- which they paid on account of  late filing of application for transfer  beyond the period of 45 days from the date of issuance of NOC. The allegations of the complainants is that the amount was in fact payable by the original allottee and not by the complainants. Hence, is this complaint.
7. After thorough examination of the case file, we are of the view that the Chandigarh housing board is providing low cost housing to the people of Chandigarh strictly on “no profit and no loss basis” with a view  to serve the society. It is also observed that the OPs are not indulged into any kind of private business being the State and as such there is no motive to earn any  un-accrued and illegal profit at the cost of anyone.
8. So far as the plea taken by the complainants that charges were to be paid by the original allottee is concerned, we are of the view that since the purchasers/complainants stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, therefore,  the terms and conditions were to be complied by them also. The applicable transfer fee alongwith fee for transfer within lock in period was well in the knowledge of the complainants. In our opinion at the time of submission of application and thereafter issuance of the NOC it was duty of the complainants to check  everything in details before entering into any  agreement with the original allottee and now after deposit of amount and transfer of DU in their names the complainants cannot take such kind of plea.
9. It is significant to mention here that  the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Estate Officer vs Charanjit Kaur, Civil Appeal No. 4964 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 5051 of 2018) decided on 07.09.2021,  categorically held that the Consumer Fora would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property. Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“24. Since the respondents are already in possession of the sites as lessee on 99 years basis, it cannot be said that the appellant was deficient in providing any service, which even if used in a liberal sense would not include transfer of title in an immovable property. Thus, the consumer fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property.……”

10.      In view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Estate Officer vs Charanjit Kaur case (supra), wherein, it has been specifically held that the Consumer Fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property, resultantly, we are of the considered view that the District Commission lacks jurisdiction to give any directions to the OPs in matters in hand.     
11.      In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/ appropriate Forum.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
30/9/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member