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

========

Sh. Satnam s/o late Sh. Karam Singh r/o House No.601, Near Bus Stand, Maloya, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9D, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

2.      Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9D, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Sunil Narang, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, in view of the scheme namely “Two Bed Room Flats, Self Financing Housing Scheme-2006, Sector 49, Chandigarh, Allotment on Free Hold Basis” floated by the OPs, the complainant applied for a two bedroom flat and deposited Rs.2,50,000/- vide demand draft dated 1.3.2006.  He was held successful in the draw of lots held on 17.4.2006 and was registered for a flat on second floor and was subsequently issued Acceptance-cum-Demand letter dated 22.9.2006 as per which the total price of the flat was Rs.25,00,000/- to be paid in instalments.  He paid all the instalments on 30.8.2007 for which he took a loan of Rs.13,00,000/- from the Axis Bank and also completed other formalities and as per clause XII he became entitled to the delivery of possession  but the same was not given despite many visits and representations dated 16.4.2009 and 22.5.2009 which caused him tremendous harassment, mental agony and suffering. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OPs have admitted most of the facts including that the complainant has made the full and final payment in respect of the dwelling unit. It has been submitted that as per schedule the construction was to be completed within 55 months and after allotment of specific dwelling unit No. the possession letter was dispatched to the complainant at his given address through registered post on 19.11.2009. The receipt of representations has been admitted. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that in view of Annexure C-1 there were three six monthly installments as mentioned under the title “VIII-Price and Mode of Payment”.  According to him the third installment was payable after 18 months of issuance of Acceptance-cum-Demand letter, thereafter the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of handing over of the possession.  The Learned Counsel wants to introduce his own explanation that this period should also be not more than 6 months and in this manner the total period which could have been taken by the OP would be 2 years. There is no dispute about it that the Acceptance-cum-Demand letter Annexure C-3 was issued by the OP on 22.09.06 and therefore according to the complainant the possession should have been delivered to her by 22.09.08.  The Learned Counsel also referred to XIII, “handing over the possession” as mentioned in Annexure C-1 that “the allottee shall be entitled to the delivery of possession of the unit only after she/he has completed all the formalities and paid all dues and furnished/executed all the documents as required/ prescribed under the scheme and in the allotment letter”. According to him the complainant has satisfied this condition also and has paid the entire amount by due dates and therefore she is entitled to the compensation for the delay in handing over the possession by the OP.  One thing is clear from Annexure C-1 that no time has been mentioned for delivery of possession.  We therefore expect a reasonable period within which the possession should have been delivered.  The Learned Counsel for the OP on the other hand has referred to Annexure R/2 and also the calculations now marked as Annexure R/2/A, to contend that they require 55 months to complete the construction of these flats.  We do not find any merit in this contention because Annexure R/2/A has been formulated by the OP subsequently to defend the litigation and it never formed part of Annexure C-1 or Acceptance-cum-Demand letter Annexure R-1.  Otherwise also the period mentioned in Annexure R/2/A is an exaggerated one without taking any of the facts that several of the acts could be undertaken by the OP alongwith the other construction works.  Annexure R-2 is the standard schedule of contract period for building works in which it is mentioned that 1 month would be counted for every additional 2500 square meters of covered area.  However in Annexure R/2/A this period has been mentioned by the OP as 7 months. The OP has also added extra period even for scattered residential quarters which in the present case were none. Period of 3 months added by the OPs in Annexure R/2/A therefore cannot be permitted.  Even from this calculation, it would be clear that the OPs should have completed the construction within 24 months but they have not.  The Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision dated 06.01.09 rendered by this Forum in Compliant Case No. 661 of 2008, Vijay Kumar and Another Vs. Chairman Housing Board, Chandigarh in which under the  similar circumstances the compensation was allowed to the complainants for the delay in completing the construction by the OP.  Needless to mention that the said decision was with respect to the different scheme called “160 One Bed Room Flats, Self Financing Housing Scheme” whereas the present one is “Two Bed Rooms Flats, Self Financing Housing Scheme”.  The Learned District Forum II has already rendered a decision in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board with respect to the present project and has dismissed the complaints filed by the complainants.  It is true that the said decision is not binding on this Forum but the judicial propriety requires that contradictory decision should be avoided.  Since no time period was given by the OP in completing construction, we are of the opinion that we cannot accept the contention of the complainant that the construction should have been completed within 2 years.

6.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed.

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