BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ravinder Kaur, w/o S.Ajit Singh, r/o #2990, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.Chandigarh Housing Board, 8 Jan Margi, Sector-9, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

2.Chief Accounts Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8 Jan Margi, Sector-9, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Ram Lal Luthra, Adv. for complainant.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             The complainant was allotted dwelling unit no. 2990, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh by the OP vide allotment dated 19.07.1988. She continued paying installments towards the price thereof.  In the year 2006, she wanted to sell this unit and applied for a No Dues Certificate. She was asked to pay Rs.32,210/- as penalty which alongwith some other amount due from her was deposited on 9.03.2006.  The contention of the complainant as mentioned in para number 9 of the complaint is that this amount was not due from her but since the OPs were not issuing the No Due Certificate, she deposited it in order to avoid any further complications. The complainant remained out of India for more than 3 years and when she came back she approached the OP through letters dated 5.11.2009 and 6.11.2009 but the OPs refused to pay back the amount.  The OPs vide letter dated 29.09.2009 asked the complainant to attend their office but subsequently vide letter dated 31.12.2009, declined to make the payment. The complainant therefore filed the present complaint on 21.01.2010.

2.           We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have perused the record to decide whether the complaint should be admitted for regular hearing or not.

3.           It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4.           The complainant was given opportunity to produce documents in support of her case and also to address arguments.

5.           The contention of the complainant is that the amount of Rs.32,210/- was not due from her and she was forced by the OPs to deposit the said amount.  On the other hand the OP had written a letter dated 31.12.2009 intimating to the complainant that the full amount of installments were not deposited by her, penalty was imposed on her for delayed payment in terms of clause 7 of the allotment letter and therefore the amount recovered from her was actually due. It is therefore infact a dispute regarding the accounting, for which the Consumer Courts are not authorized to entertain the Consumer complaint or decide it.

6.           If for arguments sake, it is presumed that the OPs have recovered excess amount from her, the relief claimed by the complainant is for the refund of the said amount of Rs.32,210/-.  It is therefore a case of recovery which again is not entertainable by the Consumer Fora and the complainant in that case is required to approach the Civil Court.

7.           The contention of the complainant is that this amount of Rs.32,210/- was not due from her, it was deposited by her under protest knowing fully well that she was not liable to pay the same.  The cause of action to recover the amount would therefore arise to her on 9.03.2006 on which date the said amount was recovered from her by the OP.  The complaint to register the grievance could be made by her within 2 years from 9.03.2006 i.e. upto 9.03.2008.  However the present complaint is filed on 21.01.2010 which is barred by time.

8.           The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that though the amount was recovered from her on 9.03.2006 yet the cause of action would accrue from 31.12.2009 when the OP declined to refund the amount.  We do not find any merit in this contention. The complainant from the very beginning knew that she was not liable to make the payment of Rs.32,210/-.  If the said amount was recovered from her wrongly and she made the payment to avoid further complications, the limitation period for filing the present complaint would start running from 9.03.2006. The successive denials of her claim by the OP (as made through letter dated 31.12.2009) would not give her a fresh cause of action.  Otherwise also when once the limitation period has started running from 9.03.2006, it will not stop in between and the right of the complainant to file a complaint would lapse on 9.03.2008.

9.           The contention of the complainant is that she went abroad and remained there for about 3 years.  She took up the matter with the OP only after she came back to India.  However, the mere fact that the complainant remained out of India is not going to extend the period of limitation to file the present complaint which has started running from 9.03.2006 when she deposited the amount under protest.

10.          The letter dated 31.12.2009 issued by the OPs clearly specifies that the 2^nd installment paid by her on 18.04.1988 for Rs.13,297/- was short by Rs.3,504/- and similarly subsequent installments were also paid short due to which penalty @25% on 6 installments being delayed for more than 3 months has been imposed as per terms of clause 7 of the allotment letter. She was also told that the payment of Rs.2,808/- has been adjusted in the ground rent for the period 19.08.1987 to 18.08.1990.  The case was re-examined and it was found that all the payments deposited by the complainant have been accounted for and the OPs have charged/calculated the amount rightly as per procedure.  She was informed that her request to refund the excess amount of Rs.32,210/- could not be acceded to.  The contention of the complainant that the installments were not properly fixed in the year 1988 to 1992 cannot be entertained now in 2010 because it is also barred by limitation. The reply submitted by the OPs is only on re-examination, meaning thereby that they had already calculated the amount earlier also and intimated the same to the complainant in view of which the said amount was deposited.  The complainant herself has attached the installment account sheet with her complaint prepared by the OP Board, showing that Rs.32,210/- was due from her.  It therefore cannot be said if there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

11.          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot file this complaint before this Forum and Consumer Fora would have no jurisdiction to try the same.  Otherwise also it is barred by time and further there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Viewed from any angle the present complaint cannot be entertained. The same is therefore dismissed in limine. 

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