Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/950/2021

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Yadav

08 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Naresh Kumar S/o Sh.Joginder Sain Kashyap, R/o Flat No.113, Young Dwellers Society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh through his GPA Holder Sh.Joginder Sain Kashyap, S/o Bhagat Ram, R/o Flat No.113, Young Dwellers Society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Chairman. Email:

Email: … Opposite Parties

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant applied under Scheme B with Form No.520 and bid an amount of Rs.71,00,000/- in order to get first floor accommodation. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.6,90,000/-, the OP No.1 allotted the flat No.203-A. The total price of the unit fixed was Rs.75,61,445/- The complainant had paid Rs.75,61,445/- till date (Annexure C-3). The complainant received acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 10.06.2016 demanding Rs.67,29,500/- which is to be paid within 90 days from the date of the letter dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure C-4). The complainant took a loan of Rs.55,00,000/- from State Bank of Patiala which was sanctioned vide letter dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure C-5). The OP No.1 received 100% of the amount on 17.10.2016. The OP No.1 was supposed to handover the possession within 36 months i.e., 10.06.2019. But it was delayed by almost 6 months to offer the possession and that too also without completion certificate. The OP No.1 vide its letter dated 17.12.2019 allotted the said unit and further demanded Rs.70,945/- as final payment which was paid by the complainant on 23.12.2019 and submitted the complete documents required for possession to the OP-Builders. The OP No.1 & 2 while issuing the allotment letter dated 17.12.2019 directed the complainant to take the possession within 60 days, in failure to do so, the allottees/complainant shall pay holding charges @ Rs.10 per sq. ft per month from the date of issuance of allotment letter Annexure C-9. The complainant took the possession of the unit in February 2020. The complainant visited the unit in question and was shocked to see the condition of the unit as the unit in question was not complete. There were number of snags in the unit but the complainant, due to holding penalty charges took the possession. The complainant wrote an email dated 01.12.2021 to the OP to address the deficiencies already submitted to the OP and also attached the deficiency list again but all in vain Annexure C-14. Despite promising several times and despite written commitments made in the brochure, the OPs failed to deliver the possession in time without completion certificate. This project was delayed by more than 6 months and no compensation for the delay period. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and latches as the allotment letter was issued in the year 2019 and now the present petition has been filed in December, 2021 and as such the complaint is not maintainable as the same was to be agitated at the time of issuance of allotment letter and possession letter to which nobody ever invited or forced the complainant. It is further submitted that no issue was raised by any of the allottees including the complainant at the time of issue of allotment letter dated 17.12.2019 and even at the time of taking possession on dated 03.02.2020 and the OPs have done their best to complete the project at the earliest and rather its speed and efficiency has been appreciated by the public at large.  That is the reason the said flats are currently available in black at a much higher price. It is also submitted that nowhere it is mentioned in the brochure that possession will be handed over within 36 months. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that, the OPs has failed to hand over the possession of the flat in time and project does not contain facilities as promised and desired that the OPs to rectify the snags in the unit. He is also desired to give direction to the OPs for conversion of unit land into freehold basis.
7.     We are of the view that Chandigarh Housing Board is providing low cost housing to the people of Chandigarh on strictly “No profit no loss basis” with a view to serve especially the economically weaker section of the society. It is also observed that the OPs are not indulging into any kind of private business being a State and as such there is no motive to earn any un-accrued and illegal profit at the cost of anyone. Moreover, the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he has been overcharged by the OPs as compared to any other person or any other allottee or he has been treated under any different set of rules and regulations. The complainant has also not adduced any documentary evidence that the OPs shall handover the possession within three years. As per Clause 25 of the scheme the development works/construction was to be completed approximately within 36 months from the date of issuance of acceptance-cum- demand letter subject to force majeure circumstances.  The relevant portion of clause 25 of the scheme is reproduced as under:-

    “The period of the development works/construction at sites shall be approximately 36 months from the date of issuance of Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter subject to force majeure and circumstances beyond the control of the CHB and any restraints, restrictions from any court/authority(ies). If due to any force majeure conditions, Govt. instructions or due to any reasons beyond the control of CHB, the CHB is unable to deliver the unit to the allottee, the CHD shall be liable to refund to the allottee the amounts received alongwith saving bank interest @ 4% p.a. and shall not be liable to pay any compensation.”

8. The version of OPs is that due to force majeure circumstances the possession could not be handed over in time, to which we are fully agreed as the additional time of around of six months was taken for removal of high tension wires, so, delay of around six months occurred due to the aforesaid force majeure circumstances which was beyond the control of the OPs. Thus, there appears to be no intentional delay on the part of OPs. Even otherwise delay of 6 months is a reasonable delay. As far as the prayer of complainant for issue of directions to the OPs for making the unit land in question freehold basis is concerned  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Estate Officer vs Charanjit Kaur case decided on 7 September, 2021 held as under

“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.……”

9.      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 opposite parties in matters relating to conversion of the plot of the complainant from leasehold to free hold site. Hence, we do not find any merit the complaint and the same are liable to be dismissed.
10.      As far as the allegation of complainant that there were various discrepancies in the flat. It is held that if there were any kind of snags or deficiency in the flat in question then the complainant should not have immediately taken the possession and rather he should have lodged his protest and only after getting the snags removed he should have taken the possession. But he failed to prove on record that at the time of taking possession he lodged any protest with the OPs. Thus, there is no merit in this plea of the complainant.
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 Parties. 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.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.