Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/180/2015

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Aseem Gupta

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/180/2015
Date of Institution	:	23/03/2015
Date of Decision	:	21/08/2015

 

 

Rajesh Kumar s/o late Sh. Sushil Kumar r/o Jhuggi No.B-637, Colony No.5, UT, Chandigarh and presently residing at H.No.LIG-1254, Phase 10, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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

……Opposite Party

 

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Aseem Gupta, Counsel for complainant
		Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Counsel for OP

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Rajesh Kumar, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Chandigarh Housing Board, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he had been residing in house No.B-637, Colony No.5, Chandigarh for the last 25 years.

                According to the complainant, he had earlier filed a CWP No.15589 of 1990 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh which was disposed of vide order dated 19.3.1991 in view of which he remained in possession of the jhuggi. In the meantime the Chandigarh Administration framed a policy regarding rehabilitation of the residents of colony No.5 and with the help of the OP constructed flats in Dhanas for allotment to the eligible residents of colony No.5.  The Chandigarh Administration thereafter carried out various surveys to find out the residents who were actually residing in Colony No.5 and the name of the complainant figured in the said survey reports.  Thereafter in January 2013, the OP wrote letters to the eligible residents of colony No.5 to attend its office on 1.2.2013 alongwith complete record and further to deposit Rs.900/- for the purpose of allotment of flat on license basis under small flat scheme 2006 and one such letter was received by the complainant on 3.2.2013.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the OP alongwith the documents on 4.2.2013, however, one official namely Shiv Kumar refused to accept the same.  The complainant, therefore, sent the entire record alongwith the bank draft of Rs.900/- in favour of the OP by registered post on 16.2.2013.  Thereafter the complainant visited the office of the OP on 18.3.2013 to find out the status of his file, but, the officials of the OP misbehaved with him.  The complainant sent two complaints to the Chairman of the OP on 18.3.2013 and 20.3.2013, but, no action was taken.  The OP returned the papers alongwith draft to the complainant vide letter dated 20.3.2013 on the ground that he failed to attend the office on 1.2.2013. Subsequently, when the matter was highlighted in media and newspapers, the officials of the OP accepted the documents from the complainant alongwith draft on 25.3.2013.  However, surprisingly the OP did not allot any suitable accommodation to the complainant and on 20.11.2013 the Chandigarh Administration forcibly demolished his jhuggi in which his household articles were destroyed. Later on the complainant came to know from the official website of the Chandigarh Administration that he had been allotted flat No.5-B, but, he was not given possession despite visiting the office of the OP and requesting its officials.  Finally the OP handed over the vacant physical possession of flat No.5-B at Dhanas to the complainant on 8.1.2015.  The complainant has contended that he suffered a lot of mental agony, emotional stress and financial loss as he lost his jhuggi and household items etc. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         In its written reply, OP has averred that it has no role to play in the proceedings of demolition of colony No.5 and the same were exclusively within the competence and power of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh.  It has been pleaded that the OP was merely a nodal agency to make allotment of small flats on the recommendations of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh in favour of those applicants who were declared eligible by him. It has been averred that the OP had requested the complainant vide letter dated 31.1.2013 to attend the camp office in CHB office complex, Sector 9, Chandigarh on 1.2.2013 at 10 a.m. alongwith his spouse. The complainant was also requested to bring the complete record, Aadhaar card in original, an affidavit as per specimen and to deposit Rs.900/- towards processing fee while submitting the above said documents. However, the complainant and his spouse failed to come present on 1.2.2013 and instead sent the documents through registered post. It has further been averred that the complainant was again requested vide letter dated 20.3.2013 to attend the camp office of the OP on 25.3.2013 alongwith his spouse and the documents received through post were sent back.  The complainant attended the camp office of the OP on 25.3.2013 and completed the formalities except vote (voter card) for the current year of allotment. Accordingly, the complainant’s case was returned to the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh for re-verification of votes who clarified the position and sent the list of eligible persons which was received on 19.12.2014. Subsequently the OP processed the complainant’s case and issued allotment letter dated 2.1.2015 i.e. within 20 days.  It has been contended that it was the function of the Chandigarh administration to get vacated the illegal/unauthorized colony from the Government land.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own. It has been averred that the complainant received his voter card for the current year on 25.1.2014 which was submitted by him with the OP immediately but still the OP failed to allot the flat to him in the year 2014. 
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         Admittedly, the complainant Mr. Rajesh Kumar had been residing in jhuggi No.637, Colony No.5, Chandigarh and he has got several ID proofs of the address which are available at Annexure C-1 to C-5.  The original No. i.e. H.No.B-637, Colony No.5, Chandigarh of the jhuggi of the complainant was issued by the survey team of Estate Office. The complainant alongwith other residents also filed a civil writ petition titled as Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Chandigarh Administration bearing CWP No.15589 of 1990 against the Chandigarh Administration and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order (Annexure C-6) observed that in view of the acquisition, the site in which the petitioners were having their huts belonged to the Chandigarh Administration and they had no doubt that whenever the land in question of the petitioners was got vacated, Chandigarh Administration might try to provide some suitable accommodation to them. The Chandigarh Administration framed a policy regarding rehabilitation of residents of Colony No.5 and the Chandigarh Housing Board (OP) constructed flats in Dhanas for allotment to the eligible residents of Colony No.5. Chandigarh Administration carried out various surveys, including biometric survey held in the year 2006, copy of which is Annexure C-2, to find out residents who were actually residing in colony No.5 and name of the complainant figured in the said survey reports.  Copies of allotment letter and possession slip (Annexure R-4 and R-5) show that the complainant was allotted flat No.5-B in Dhanas, Chandigarh on licence basis and the complainant and his wife, Mrs. Arpit Garg were granted physical possession of the said flat vide letter  dated 2.1.2015.  It is to be determined whether the complainant is entitled to get any damages towards the loss of jhuggi, household items and other documents apart from compensation for harassment, emotional stress and agony on account of delay in handing over of the possession of the said flat. 
7.         After scrutinizing the entire evidence, we find that there is definite evidence on the file to prove that the officers of the OP accepted the application and the documents from the complainant alongwith deposit of Rs.900/- in cash after a long delay on 25.3.2013.  Admittedly, the OP asked the complainant vide letter No.CHB/AO-I/2013/67/1907 dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure
   C-7/R-1) to attend its camp office on 1.2.2013 at 10:00 a.m. alongwith his spouse with complete record and Aadhaar card in original alongwith one affidavit and to deposit Rs.900/- towards processing fee for allotment of the flat.  According to the averments of the complainant in the rejoinder, he received the said letter dated 31.1.2013 on 3.2.2013. The OP has not produced any documentary evidence to this effect that the said letter was received by the complainant either on 31.1.2013 or in the morning on 1.2.2013.  Obviously, in the absence of any prior notice, the complainant could not appear before the officials of the OP on 1.2.2013.  The allegations of the complainant, coupled with the affidavit, show that he approached the OP office alongwith his documentary evidence  including the attested affidavit dated 4.2.2013, but, one official namely Sh. Shiv Kumar refused to accept the documents of the complainant.  According to the complainant, he visited the office thrice and each time the file was not accepted by the officials of the Chandigarh Housing Board (OP). The OP has not produced any affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar to this effect that the complainant did not visit the office of the OP thrice after 3.2.2013 and his allegation that his file was not accepted was not correct. Consequently we feel that since his application was not accepted by the officials of the OP, there was no option before the complainant but to send the documents alongwith fee through registered post on 16.2.2013. Significantly, the complainant has also alleged that he visited the office of the OP on 18.3.2013 in order to find out the status of his file, but, the officials of the OP misbehaved with him and refused to divulge the status of his file. The concerned official Sh. Shiv Kumar and Accounts Officer, Sh. Vikram Singh also commented and abused against the order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.  Again, no such affidavits of S/Sh. Shiv Kumar and Vikram Singh have been produced which could show that they did not refuse to divulge the status of the file of the complainant. Pertinently, later on, after keeping the documents and the fee of the complainant for one month with it, the original papers alongwith the pay order of Rs.900/- were returned to him by the OP vide letter dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure C-9/Annexure R-2) with a direction to attend the office and to see the concerned team members of the camp for further advice latest by 25.3.2013.  It was on that date only that the OP found that the complainant had completed the formalities except the voter card for the current year of allotment i.e. 2013.  The material on record shows that the complainant made efforts for submission of his application form w.e.f. 4.2.2013, but, the officials of the OP did not take any action. Then the complainant was compelled to send the same alongwith the bank draft of Rs.900/- to the OP through registered post on 16.2.2013.  However, after keeping the documents and the fee of Rs.900/- for more than one month, the same were returned to the complainant with the remark that he had not attended the camp on 31.1.2013 alongwith his spouse and relevant record.  As already observed, the complainant was not at all at fault because he could not attend the office of the OP on 1.2.2013 at 10:00 a.m. because he had received the letter dated 31.1.2013 only on 3.2.2013.  Hence, the delay in acceptance of the application form alongwith the documents submitted by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
8.         Adverting to the other allegations of the complainant, according to the complainant after submission of the application alongwith the documents on 25.3.2013, allotment of the flat was made on 2.1.2015.  It has been contended by the complainant that he submitted the voter card of the year 2013 of his wife (co-applicant), but, could not supply his own voter card because the same was applied and was not received by him.  He received the voter card on 25.1.2014 which was submitted by him immediately, but, still the OP failed to allot the flat to him.  He has also submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has clearly held as per news item dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure C-11) that voter card is not required for the allotment and any proof of living in jhuggi is permissible.  He has submitted that after a long delay, OP returned his verified file for re-verification to Estate Office due to ego problem of its officers.
9.         We have carefully considered the above arguments of the complainant. It is important to note that as per clause 6 (a) of the Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme 2006, all persons whose names appear in the biometric survey and voter list as on 1.1.2006 shall be eligible for allotment of a flat on licence basis. The name of the person should also appear in the latest voter list of the year in which the allotment is to be made. The complainant was admittedly not having any voter card at the time of making the application for the flat on 25.3.2013. The OP accordingly sent the case of the complainant for re-verification of votes. The Estate Officer clarified the position and sent the list of the eligible persons (Annexure R-3) which was received on 19.12.2014 by the OP.  Thereafter the office of the OP processed the case of the complainant and issued allotment letter dated 2.1.2015 (Annexure R-4) within 20 days and the possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant on 6.1.2015. The written statement of the OP shows that the delay was on account of non-existence of the vote for the current allotment year i.e. 2013 which was requirement of the scheme and the Chandigarh Administration relaxed that condition and the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh had intimated the same to the Chandigarh Housing Board on 19.12.2014.  We feel that the Chandigarh Housing Board could not relax the eligibility condition itself.  After the Estate Office sent the list of the eligible persons, which included the name of the complainant, on 19.12.2014, there was no delay on the part of the OP and allotment letter of the flat was issued in favour of the complainant within 20 days.  It is also noteworthy that the said news regarding order of the Hon’ble High Court regarding requirement of voter card as proof of living in jhuggi being not mandatory was published in the newspaper on 23.12.2014. Thus, when the OP had started taking action after receipt of the letter (Annexure R-3) from the Estate Officer on 19.12.2014 and the Hon’ble High Court had passed the order later on, it cannot be stated that there was any delay on the part of the OP on this count.
10.         As far as the allegations of the complainant that the Chandigarh Administration forcibly demolished the jhuggi of all the residents of colony No.5 including him and all the household articles and job related papers  published/unpublished articles were destroyed due to which he suffered huge loss and emotional stress is concerned, the OP has specifically pleaded that it has no role to play in deciding the eligibility of the candidates, framing of rehabilitation policy and for demolishing of unauthorized Colony No.5 from over the Govt. land.  The OP is merely a nodal agency to make allotment of small flats on the recommendations of the Estate Office, Chandigarh in favour of those applicants who are declared eligible by the competent authority i.e. the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh after conducting survey. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to this effect that the Chandigarh Housing Board (OP) was in any way connected with the demolition of the jhuggies of the residents of Colony No.5.  Rather in para 8 of the complaint, the complainant has contended that the Chandigarh Administration forcibly demolished the jhuggies of all the residents of colony No.5 without any prior intimation and took over the possession of the land. The complainant has neither impleaded Chandigarh Administration nor the Estate Officer, Chandigarh as parties in the complaint, therefore, there cannot be any question of payment of any damages or compensation for the alleged loss suffered by him on account of demolition of the jhuggi, destruction of household items and loss of important documents.
11.         Lastly, the complainant has also prayed in the complaint that he was allotted a defective flat which needed a lot of repairs like electricity wiring, flooring, paint, plumbing work etc. to make it worth living and OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  It is worth noting that the complainant did not place on record any document alongwith the complaint about any defect in the flat.  Some photographs at Annexure C-16 were produced only alongwith the rejoinder. These photographs ought to have been produced alongwith the complaint to enable the OP to file an appropriate reply. While getting the possession of the flat, the complainant did not raise any objection about any defects in the flat.  The complainant has not produced any report of the expert, which could show that the flat allotted to him is defective.  Hence, we do not find any definite and positive evidence about the alleged defects in the flat allotted to the complainant.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint only to this extent that there was deficiency in service on account of delay in acceptance of the application and documents of the complainant by the OP.  Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed.  The OP is directed :-
    1. To make payment of a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment to him and deficiency in service in accepting the application form alongwith documents only on 25.3.2013.
    2. To also pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
13.         This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
21.08.2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President