DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 826 of 2010] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 27.12.2010 Date of Decision : 30.08.2012 -------------------------------- Smt. Sunita Narang, H.No. 667, Sector 45, Gurgaon. ---Complainant VERSUS Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Chairman. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. B.J. Singh, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party along with Sh. Rajesh Sethi, Senior Assistant O/o OP. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the grounds that, the Complainant had purchased booth plot no. 1001, Sector 38[w], Chandigarh, through an auction held on 6.11.2001 on Complainant’s bid of Rs.19,00,000/-. The Complainant paid 25% of the paid amount and an allotment letter dated 4.1.2002 was issued in favour of the Complainant by the Opposite Party. As per the allotment letter dated 4.1.2002, the balance amount could be paid in 3 yearly installments, last date of payment of the 3rd installment being 1.1.2005 and any outstanding amount attracted an interest @18% p.a. The Complainant managed some funds and made the payments of Rs.12,25,000/-, besides the bid amount, till 23.08.2002. On inquiry made by the Complainant on 2.9.2002, Opposite Party informed that a balance amount of Rs.3,38,811/- remained payable as on 31.10.2002. Against the demand of Rs.3,38,811/- the Complainant made a payment of Rs.3,44,500/- on various dates between 03.11.2002 up to 12.5.2003, along with interest for the late payment. In such manner, the Complainant deposited total of Rs.20,49,940.00 as against Rs.19,00,000/- being the price of the plot. The Complainant requested for the issuance of no due certificate, which was not being acceded by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a detailed letter dated 8.1.2010 demanding issuance of no due certificate, but the Opposite Party in response raised an illegal demand of Rs.8,85,155/- for the issuance of no due certificate. Aggrieved of the illegal demand made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 31.8.2010, but the Opposite Party vide its letter dated 5.10.2010 refused to issue no due certificate, till the demand of Rs.8,85,155/- was met. The Complainant thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, has prayed for the following relief: - [a] Opposite Party may be directed to withdraw the unwarranted and illegal demand of Rs.8,85,155/-; [b] Opposite Party may be directed to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ to Complainant in respect of Booth Pot No. 1001, 38 (West), Chandigarh; [c] Award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment; [d] Award a sum of Rs.11,000/- for cost of litigation; The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by her detailed affidavit. 2. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, admitting to the contents of Para 1 to 5 as the same being matter of record. However, in reply to Para 6 and 7, the Opposite Party has claimed that as per the version of the Complainant, she has not followed the schedule of payment and has been making payments of her own convenience. The three annual installments of Rs.6,55,392/- were to be paid by her due on 01.01.2003, 01.01.2004 and 01.01.2005. The payment schedule is given under clause X of the Allotment letter. These installments also included an interest component @18% p.a. on the principal amount and failure in payment of the same attracted an interest @24% p.a. as stipulated in clause XI of the allotment letter. While making these submissions, the Opposite Party has mentioned the due dates of receipt of different amounts in a tabulated form in para 7 (at Pg. 2 of the reply). It is further mentioned that as the balance of principal amount of Rs.3,90,216/- w.e.f. 1.1.2005 to 31.3.2010 for a period of 63 months has been charged @24% per annum. It is also stated that the Complainant did not pay the ground rent @Rs.255/- per annum for the period 23.10.2003 to 22.10.2010 (07 years). Therefore, an interest @24% per annum too was levied on outstanding against the ground rent. Thus, the demand of the Opposite Party for Rs.8,85,155/- payable up to 31.3.2010 was legal and in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment. The Opposite Party in para 8 has admitted to the acceptance of legal notice from the side of the Complainant, which they had replied vide their letter no. 15484 dated 5.10.2010, claiming their demand of Rs.8,85,155/- to just and fair. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Party is duly verified and supported by detailed affidavit of Sh.M.M. Sabharwal, PCS, Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh. 3. The Complainant has filed her rejoinder dated 7.12.2011 to the written statement submitted by the Opposite Party, by way of an affidavit, which is duly verified. The Complainant has asserted the averments of her complaint again through her rejoinder with Annexures C-9 to C-14 respectively. 4. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 5. It is important to quote here that as per the admission of the Opposite Party in their written statement all the averments of the present complaint from Para 1 to 5 are admitted. However, while answering to the allegations of the Complainant, in Para 6 and 7, the Opposite Party has submitted detail in a tabulated form, wherein it is found that till 16.12.2002 i.e. before the due date of payment of 1st installment of Rs.6,55,392/-, the Complainant had actually deposited Rs.14,40,510/- and within the next 10 days of grace of period, for the first installment, another sum of Rs.10,000/- is found deposited. Hence, the Complainant had actually deposited a sum of Rs.14,50,510/- till 10.1.2003 with the Opposite Party against the installment of Rs.6,55,392/-. It is thus proved that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,95,118/- in excess and this amount was supposed to be carried forward in the 2nd installment that the Opposite Party was to receive from the side of the Complainant. Hence, there was no short payment that could attract penal interest @24% p.a. towards outstanding of the 1st installment. 6. Thereafter, during the period of 2nd installment, for which the due date was 1.1.2004, the Complainant made a payment of Rs.1,19,000/-. Meaning thereby that against the payment of Rs.6,55,392/-, the Opposite Party had received an amount of Rs.7,95,118/- plus Rs.1,19,000/- i.e. Rs.9,14,118/- i.e. the Complainant had actually paid an amount of Rs.2,58,726/- in excess. Hence, there was no amount outstanding towards the complaint at the time when the second installment was due. Therefore, there was no amount towards the Complainant that could attract penal interest @24% p.a. recoverable by the Opposite Party. 7. Thereafter, the Complainant was to make a payment of Rs.6,55,392/- by 1.1.2005 but as the Opposite Party was already in receipt of Rs.2,58,726/- in excess, thus, an amount of Rs.3,96,666/- was to be paid by the Complainant, till 1.1.2005. The Complainant on making inquiries was required to pay an interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding amount of Rs.3,90,216/- which had actually multiplied to Rs.8,81,888/-, for which the Opposite Party has submitted a detail of statement as Annexure R-25 to R-27 respectively. It would also be not out of place to mention that Complainant had herself attached a letter dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure C-6) through which the Opposite Party had confirmed about the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.8,85,155/- as on 31.3.2010. Though Complainant has issued a legal notice challenging this letter, which was replied back and the same demand was reiterated by the Opposite Party. Though the Complainant has also annexed Annexure C-4 (Pg. 12 & 13) which is a detail of the payments made by her as well as the interest @18% p.a. has been shown in a tabulated form and at the bottom of this document, a sentence has been appended by the Complainant which is as below:- “In view of the above, I had paid the entire dues & nothing is to be paid by me.” We have not been able to figure out as to how the Complainant had reached this conclusion. 8. The Opposite Party while filing its reply has annexed the allotment letter dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure R-1). Para no. 9 and 11 of the allotment letter reads as under:- “9. The lease shall be deemed to have commenced from 23.10.1999. In case, it is intended to pay the premium in instalments, the balance of 75% of the premium together with interest thereon at 18% p.a. shall be payable in three yearly equated instalments, the first instalment being payable at the expiry of one year from the date of allotment. Interest shall accrue from the date of allotment. However, no interest shall be payable if the said 75% (balance of the premium) is paid in full within 30 days of the issue of allotment letter……….” “11. In the event of non-payment of any instalment of premium by the due date mentioned in para 9 of the A/L, you shall be liable to pay penalty @24% p.a. on the amount due. Further, in case the payment along with penalty is not made within three months from the date on which the instalment was originally due, the lease shall be liable to be cancelled and the Booth resumed and the whole or part of the amount already paid forfeited to the Board.” 9. It is revealed from the documents that an amount of Rs.3,96,666/- was outstanding against the Complainant from 17.11.2004 and the same remained unpaid till the expiry of 10.01.2005. In these circumstances, we feel that as per Clause 11, reproduced above, the Opposite Party was very much within its mandate to charge interest @24% from the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant has failed to convince us about the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the light of above observations, we dismiss the present complaint. However, there is no order as to costs. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th August, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
