Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/109/2016

Tarun Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Gupta

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/109/2016
Date of Institution	:	15/02/2016
Date of Decision	:	10/01/2018

 

Tarun Verma S/o Rajiv Verma, resident of House No.617, 1^st Floor, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

 

[2]     Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Amit Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Bani Thomas, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

1.         Sh. Tarun Verma, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Chandigarh Housing Board and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that on 30.04.2008 he applied for one Bed Room Flat under Category-C in the General Self Financing Housing Scheme 2008 for Sector 63, Chandigarh introduced by the Opposite Parties, by depositing Rs.1,71,574/- as initial amount. The reserve price of the said flat was Rs.17,15,744/-. The Complainant was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 10.11.2013 and was issued acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 08.11.2011 in respect of third floor of one Bed Room Flats. As per the said acceptance-cum-demand letter, the Complainant deposited Rs.18,76,604/- with the Opposite Parties till 19.12.2013. However, to his utter surprise, he was issued show cause notice dated 22.08.2015 by the Opposite Party No.2 for cancellation of the flat showing Rs.3,02,519/- to be outstanding against him. The Complainant accordingly represented the Opposite Parties to withdraw the show cause notice as he had already deposited the entire installment amount in the year 2013, but to no success. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         In their written reply, Opposite Parties have pleaded that the Complainant had applied for registration and allotment of one bed room category under General Financing Housing Scheme 2008 in Sector 63, Chandigarh and was declared successful in the second draw of lots held on 10.11.2008 and was allotted Dwelling Unit No.2319-C (Third Floor). The acceptance-cum-demand letter was accordingly issued to him. On checking of account, a sum of Rs.3,02,519/- was found due against him and accordingly, a show cause notice was sent to him vide letter dated 22.8.2015, but instead of depositing the outstanding dues, he preferred to file the instant Complaint before this Forum. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. 
7.         It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties on various counts, as detailed in the Complaint itself. However, various deficiencies pointed out are the outcome due to pending arrears & interest on the part of the Complainant to the Opposite Parties which pertain to the period from the year 2008 to 2013. A bare perusal of the allegations in the complaint reveals that the main allegation of the complainant is that he had deposited the entire installment amount of Rs.18,76,604/- as per Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure A-10) in the year 2013. After passing a period of two years, the Opposite Party No.2 had issued a notice dated 22.08.2015 to him for cancellation of flat which was allotted to him and demanding an amount of Rs.3,02,519/- showing to be outstanding towards him.  The Complainant has contended that if any amount was due towards him on any account, then the Opposite Parties should have issued show cause notice in the year 2013 itself when he deposited the entire amount of installments and not after passing a period of two years i.e. 22.08.2015. It is important to note that the dispute raised in the present complaint by the complainant is based on the basis of rendition of accounts. The transactions pointed out by the complainant relate to a number of years requiring proof through voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence.  Since the case relates to cancellation of the allotment of flat based on settlement of accounts, the appropriate Forum for deciding the same is the civil court.  In this context, attention can be had to                Sh. Gian Chand Garg & Ors. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., First Appeal No.178 of 2013 decided on 6.9.2013 by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh which is based on Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd., III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC) and Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors., I (1996) CPJ 228 (NC). We feel that since complex and complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, it cannot be decided through summary adjudication.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs, but, we grant an opportunity to the Complainant to seek redressal of their grievances before an appropriate Forum, except the Consumer Fora, as per law. In terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Complainant may seek condonation of delay, if any, by moving an appropriate application before the appropriate Court/Forum, if so advised.
9.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
10/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”