Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/559/2019

Raj Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/559/2019
Date of Institution	:	29.5.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.4.23

 

Raj Kumari wife of Sh. Uttam Chand aged about 77 years resident of House No.1009, Sector 16, Panchkula.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

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

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Devinder Kumar, counsel for complainant. Sh. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for OP.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant in pursuance of advertisement complainant was allotted Booth No.37, Modern Complex Manimajra, Chandigarh measuring 204.18 sq. feet vide allotment letter dated 29.1.2001. The auction price of the booth was Rs.14,50,000/- and the complainant had paid 10% of the auction price i.e., Rs.1,45,000/- at the time of fall of hammer and deposited a sum of Rs.2,17,500/- on 6.1.2001.  The balance amount payable in three equated installments. Due to certain exigencies followed by uncertained crisis the complainant could not make the payment of three equated installments consequently the complainant was issued show cause notice dated 7.4.2003 and thereafter order dated 24.12.2004 declaring the complainant as unauthorized occupant and directed to vacate the booth No.37.  Thereafter complainant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 5.12.2011. The complainant requested the OP vide letter dated 20.12.2011 to take necessary action as per order dated 20.12.2011. The OP vide letter dated 25.6.2014 demanded revival charges of Rs.36,250/- and ground rent intt. Thereof for the period 1.6.2012 to 31.5.2014 which is worked out to Rs8998 and to be paid on or before 30.6.2014. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the said amount vide receipt No.087 dated 22.6.2015. But despite that the OP failed to do the needful and instead of restoring booth vide letter dated 26.5.2016 demanded Rs.2393/- on account of ground rent and Rs.1,62,199/- service tax before 31.5.2016 Rs.1,67,791/- after 31.5.2016. The complainant though not liable to pay service tax yet to avoid complication deposited a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- vide letter dated 4.9.2017 with the OP with a the request to issue no due certificate. It is alleged that despite the complainant deposited entire amount and other payment as demanded by OP and completed all formalities the OP failed to restore the booth No.37, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.
2. OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that she had deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e., Rs.3,62,500/-. She failed to pay three annual equated installments @ Rs.5,00,167/- w.e.f. 01.01.2002, 01.01.2003, 01.01.2004 respectively and consequently a show cause notice was issued to the allottee dated 07.04.2003 and further dated 19.05.2003. The complainant in response to these show cause notice dated 30.06.2003 requested for intimation of total amount due. The demand of lumsum was intimated to her letter dated 05.05.2004 due to non-payment of dues (Annexure OP/1).  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong. Further, an eviction notice was also issued to the applicant vide this office letter dated 24.12.2004. As per office record, a complaint has been received by the OP wherein it has been reported that the during the pendency of the Civil Writ Petition cancelled booth was sold. The office/OP on the basis of said complaint wrote so many letters to Sub Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh to supply the relevant record i.e., General Power of Attorney, Sale agreement and Will. The Sub Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh has not supplied the relevant documents but they have mentioned in their letter that the complainant executed GPA & Will in respect of the booth No.37 Manimajra, Chandigarh on 28.09.2011. It is further submitted that the complainant has herself failed to provide/supply relevant information to the OP. The present complaint is time barred. The present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
3. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
5. As per the affidavit of the complainant he is 77 year old senior citizen suffering from various health problems. The case of the complainant is that he invested his hard-earned money in 2001 for the purpose of purchasing the booth in question. Despite this fact that no any dues is pending to be paid by the complainant which is admitted by OP as well till date he is not in the possession of the booth in question. As per Annexure C-3, dated 24.12.2004 he was declared unauthorized occupant and was directed by the OP to vacate the said booth. After various follow ups finally relief was granted by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, as per the order dated 05.12.2011 which reads as under:-

     “Today the learned counsel for respondent board has confirmed that each and now, no amount is due against the said booth.

     Therefore, on instructions learned counsel states that the impugned order be set aside.

     In view of the facts that the complainant has paid the entire amount, including the penal and compound interest, and no amount is due against her, which has been confirmed by the respondent board, the impugned order dated 24.12.2004 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed”.

 

But it is the allegations of the complainant that despite the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and payment of the required charges, the OP till date has not complied with the aforesaid order and the booth in question has not been restored in the name of the complainant.

6.   Evidently, as per annexure C-7, dated 25.06.2014 sent by the OP, it agreed upon to comply with the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, pronouncement dated 05.12.2011 to revive the booth in question subject to the payment of revival charges and ground rent which is admittedly paid by the complainant at present.

7.   Not only this, instead of restoring as stated in letter Annexure C-7 and the order of Hon’ble High Court, the OP issued another letter dated 26.05.2016 Annexure C-10, to deposit another payment of Rs.1,62,199/- as service tax which has also been paid by the complainant, as per Annexure C-12.

8.   Demand of revival charges clearly states that booth had to be revived subject to the payment of revival charges but till date nothing has been done. Even the demand of service tax was satisfied by the complainant. We feel that non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and non-compliance of there own promise as per Annexure C-7, C-10 & C-12 shows only adamant attitude of the OP to harass the complainant.

9.   So far as the defence of OP regarding the ‘Will’ of the complainant is concerned, the same is of no help to the OP as it is the admitted case of the parties that the testator/complainant is still alive therefore, law is settled that the ‘Will’ operates only after the demise of the testator. The OP has also resisted the complaint of the complainant on the ground that she had already executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh.Anand Prakash Sharda, copy of which is annexed as General Power of Attorney dated 28.09.2011, authorizing him even to transfer the property/booth in dispute and she is no more a consumer. However, there is no merit in the defence of the OP as it is clear from the copy of General Power of Attorney executed by complainant infavour of Sh.Anand Prakash Sharda dated 28.09.2011 that the complainant has only authorized her attorney to make all sorts of correspondence with the OP, to pay the due installment, look after the repair work etc., including transfer of the booth. As it is an admitted fact that even the attorney of the complainant has not transferred the booth in question to any person hence, the same is of no help to the OP. Hence, the act of the OP for non-providing proper services to the complainant proves deficiency in services on its part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.

10.  In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP is directed as under:-

1. to immediately restore the booth No.37, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh in the name of the complainant.
2. to pay 30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay 10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.  This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above

12.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

[Pawanjit Singh]

President Ls

Sd/

[Surjeet Kaur] Member