Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/421/2017

Meenakshi Chandel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Chaudhri Adv.

12 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/421/2017
Date of Institution	:	25/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	12/07/2018

 

Meenakshi Chandel w/o Sh. Rajeev Kumar Chandel, R/o H.No. 3243, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Chandigarh Housing Board, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

 

[2]     Axis Bank, through its Manager, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vinod Chaudhri, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Arjun Kundra, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
		None for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Mrs. Meenakshi Chandel, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Chandigarh Housing Board and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that the Opposite Party No.1 has arbitrarily charged the interest on the payment of installments remitted by the Complainant in regard to allotment of H.No.64-C, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh. There was absolutely no delay in remittance of the amount, as per the chart detailed hereinbelow, and if at all there was any delay, it might be on account of casual approach on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

Due Date	D.D. Date	Date of Payment as per receipts of Axis Bank	Amounts	Remarks
24.05.2012	22.05.2012	23.05.2012	6,84,750/-	21,912/- wrongly charged
24.04.2013	24.04.2013	24.04.2013	13,29,681/-	Rs.18,634/- wrongly charged
24.10.2013	19.11.2013	19.11.2013	2,50,000/-	Rs.16,195/- wrongly charged
24.10.2013	19.12.2013	19.12.2013	2,50,000/-	Rs.15,769/- wrongly charged.

Accordingly, a legal notice dated 09.05.2016 was served upon the Opposite Party No.1, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement, inter alia, pleading that the Complainant failed to deposit the installments within time, as per the Schedule of Payment and agreed terms and conditions. Thus, the penalty (interest) was charged by the answering Opposite Party on account of delayed payments made by the Complainant, which was in conformity with the terms and conditions/clauses (clause no.3, 4, 5 & 8) of the Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 resisted the Complaint and filed its separate written version, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that amount of Rs.6,84,750/- was cleared in Chandigarh Housing Board Account on 23.05.2012, Rs.13,29,681/- was cleared on 24.04.2013, Rs.2,50,000/- was cleared on 21.11.2013 and Rs.2,50,000/- was cleared on 20.12.2013. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         The case of the Complainant is that Opposite Party No.1 has arbitrarily charged interest on the payment of installments remitted by her in regard to the allotment of H.No.64-C, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh. It has been contended that there was no delay in the remittance of the amount as per the payment schedule as provided by Opposite Party No.1.
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Complainant herself failed to deposit the installments within time as per the payment Schedule, hence penalty/ interest was charged by it due to delay on the part of the Complainant for the payment of the scheduled amount.
9.         On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 has maintained that it after getting the amount from the Complainant disbursed the same to Opposite Party No.1 in time and hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. 
10.         The chart formulated by the Complainant is having the details of the due date, date of payment as per receipts of Opposite Party No.2 and amounts deposited along with penalty charged.
11.         It is evident from Annexure P-1 that the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.6,84,750/- due on 24.05.2012 to Opposite Party No.2 on 22.05.2012 in the form of Demand Draft which was very well received by Opposite Party No.2 on 23.05.2012. Similarly, as per Annexure P-2, the amount of Rs.13,29,681/- due on 24.04.2013 was deposited by the Complainant with Opposite Party No.2 on 24.04.2013 which was duly received by it. Thus, in both these cases, as per Schedule of Opposite Party No.1, the due date was 24.05.2012 and 24.04.2013 respectively and the payments were received by the Opposite Parties well in time as per the due date fixed. Hence, we feel that the penalty/interest was certainly wrongly charged by the Opposite Party No.1. Furthermore, in case of next two installments, the due date is 24.10.2013 and it was received by the Opposite Parties on 19.11.2013 and 19.12.2013 respectively as an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on two occasions. Apparently, there is delay of one month for the 1^st payment of Rs.2,50,000/- and thereafter, again delay of two months in case of next payment of Rs.2,50,000/-. Hence, we are of the concerted opinion that in case if the interest/penalty is to be charged by Opposite Party No.1 on these two amounts of Rs.2,50,000/- each  where due date was 24.10.2013, the interest needed to be collected for one month and thereafter for two months respectively.
12.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 alone, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]    To refund the amount of penalty wrongly charged by it after re-calculating the penalty again carefully;

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

The Complainant qua Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed.

 

13.      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% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions as in sub-para [a] and [c] above.  
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/07/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President