Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/298/2023

PREM PARKASH TALWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/298/2023
Date of Institution	:	11/06/2023
Date of Decision	:	03/06/2024

 

Prem Parkash Talwar son of Sh. Bhagwan Dass, aged about 74 years r/o House No.1309, Silvertone Society, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Secretary.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Deepak Malhotra, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Prem Parkash Talwar, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that in the public auction held on 30.10.2002 by the OP, booth No.18, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “subject booth”) was allotted to Smt. Vishan Devi w/o Sh.Narian Dass vide allotment letter dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure C-1). Later on, said allottee transferred the lease rights by way of transfer deed dated 18.5.2018 (Annexure C-2) in favour of her son Pawan Kumar (blood relation) and accordingly the OP had transferred the allotment of leasehold rights in respect of the subject booth in his favour vide letter dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure C-3). The complainant having no source of income and with a view to earn livelihood, decided to purchase the subject booth and accordingly approached aforesaid Pawan Kumar who agreed to the same.  Thereafter both the complainant and Pawan Kumar approached the OP for issuance of no objection certificate for the transfer of leasehold rights by way of sale.  OP had issued no objection certificate (Annexure C-4) subject to deposit of ₹8,26,000/- as transfer fee. Thereafter aforesaid Pawan Kumar executed deed of transfer of lease by way of sale deed dated 12.7.2022 (Annexure C-5) in favour of complainant qua the subject booth and accordingly complainant deposited an amount of ₹8,26,000/- in the account of the OP vide receipt 29.8.2022 (Annexure C-6) and requested the OP through application, which was received vide receipt dated 14.9.2022 (Annexure C-7), for the transfer of the subject booth in his name.  However, in response to the said letter, OP vide letter dated 1.12.2022 (Annexure C-8) further directed the complainant to pay ₹6,730/- alongwith interest and GST as there was delay in the deposit of the transfer fee of ₹8,26,000/-. The said amount was again deposited by the complainant in the account of the OP and thereafter he submitted all the documents with the OP for the transfer of the subject booth in his name.  Vide letter dated 16.1.2023 (Annexure C-10), complainant was informed by the OP that the subject booth has been transferred in his name.  However, as the OP has charged higher registration fee from the complainant and on knowing this fact, complainant requested the OP to refund the excess amount received from him by only taking the transfer fee as per office order dated 8.2.2023 (Annexure C-11), but, the OP refused to refund the same.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  However, it is admitted that the complainant had applied for transfer of the subject booth in his name and the same was accordingly ordered to be transferred in his name regarding which OP had issued transfer letter dated 16.1.2023 on completion of certain formalities and deposit of transfer fee to the tune of ₹8,26,000/- and ₹6,730/- for the delay in deposit of transfer fee. It is further alleged that, in fact, the orders for reduction of transfer fee were issued on 8.2.2023 i.e. after issuance of the transfer letter dated 16.1.2023 and now the complainant cannot derive benefit of the said order as the same was not retrospective in nature, rather the same was applicable only for pending as well as new applications.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject booth from one Pawan Kumar (erstwhile leaseholder) and when he applied for transfer of the subject booth in his name with the OP, same was transferred in his name by the OP and accordingly the complainant was intimated vide letter dated 16.1.2023 (Annexure C-10), on deposit of transfer fee of ₹8,26,000/- as well as charges for delay to the tune of ₹6,720/- by the complainant and further that the OP had only reduced the registration charges w.e.f. 8.2.2023, as is also evident from the order (Annexure C-11), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP had charged excessive transfer charges from the complainant and he is entitled for the refund of the excess amount from the OP, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OP had rightly charged the transfer charges from the complainant when the order dated 8.2.2023 was not in force and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documents, especially the transfer letter dated 16.1.2023 vide which the complainant was informed that the subject booth had been transferred in his name by the OP as well as the order dated 8.2.2023 and the same are required to be scanned carefully in order to determine if the order dated 8.2.2023 has retrospective effect so far as charges for the transfer of property by the OP is concerned.
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-10 clearly indicates that the complainant had deposited the transfer charges, including delay charges with the OP prior to 16.1.2023 and only thereafter the OP had transferred the subject booth in his name.  Similarly, order dated 8.2.2023 (Annexure C-11) passed by the OP clearly indicates that the transfer fee for pending and new applications was only ordered to be applicable by the said order and the same was not having retrospective effect. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below for ready reference :-

        “In pursuance of the decision of the Board in its 427^th meeting held on 02.02.2023 vide Item No.427.4.1 and in supersession of the office order No.241 dated 09.11.2015, the transfer fees of Commercial Properties that were sold by the Chandigarh Housing Board through auction/tender i.e. competitive bidding process, to be charged on the lines of Estate Office. The transfer fee for the pending and new applications shall be as under:

1.     In case of commercial properties allotted through auction/tender, i.e. competitive bidding, the CHB may charge transfer fee on the lines of Estate Office, Chandigarh Administration with applicable GST which is given as follow:-

Type of Site/ Building	Coverable Area	Open Area
Booth/Bay Shop (Single Storey)	Rs.400/- per sq.yd.	Rs.200/- per sq.yd.
SCF	Rs.600/- per sq.yd.	Rs.200/- per sq.yd.
SCO	Rs.800/- per sq.yd.	Rs.200/- per sq.yd.

Note: It is clarified that these charges are for the area of the site, and not for the floor wise area of the building.

2.     The publication charges for transfer of commercial property to be kept at par with the publication charges for other properties i.e. Rs.10,000 + applicable GST.

Here it is clarified that for the commercial units allotted other than auction/tender process (competitive bidding); the CHB is charging 25% of UEI on the lines of the fees being charged by the Estate Office, Chandigarh Administration and the same to continue.”

 

4. In view of the foregoing discussion, as it stands proved on record that the subject booth had already been transferred in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 16.1.2023 (Annexure C-10), i.e. prior to the issuance of the order dated 8.2.2023 (Annexure C-11) by the OP, which had no retrospective effect qua the transfer charges, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the transfer charges, which the OP had charged as per the prevalent/applicable rates.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member