Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/370/2020

Vinay Kumar Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Yadav & Vineet Yadav

26 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/370/2020
Date of Institution	:	15.9.2020
Date of Decision	:	26.5.2023

 

Vinay   Kumar Srivastava S/o Sh. Mewa Lal Srivastava, r/o flat No.204-A, (first floor), Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Chairman.
2.  Chandigarh  Housing Board, 8,  Jan marg, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Executive Engineer-III.

 … Opposite Parties

[2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/371/2020
Date of Institution	:	15.9.2020
Date of Decision	:	26.5.2023

             

1.   Arun Kumar s/o sh.  Nand Kishore r/o flat No.200-A (First floor), Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

…. Complainant

V E R S U S

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

2. Chandigarh Housing Board, 8,  Jan marg, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Executive Engineer-III.

….Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Narinder  Yadav, counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh. Vishal Sodhi, counsel for OPs.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA,Member

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.      The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.370 of 2020 titled as Vinay Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh  Housing Board & anr.
3. Briefly stated the complainant applied for a flat with the OPs and  under Scheme B and allotted flat No. 204-A. The total cost of the unit was Rs.71,00,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.75,32,453 to the OPs towards the price of the flat in question.  The OPs received 98% of amount on 15.10.2016 and OP no.1 had to handover the possession within 36 months i.e. on 10.6.2019 from the date of issuance of acceptance-cum- demand letter dated 10.6.2016. But the OPs issued allotment letter dated 17.12.2019 directing the complainant take the possession within 60 days in failure to do so to pay holding charges @Rs.10/- per sq. feet per month from the date of issuance of allotment letter. The complainant took possession on 23.1.2020. After taking the possession the complainant was shocked to see that there were number of snags in the unit but the complainant due to holding charges took the possession.  The complainant brought in the notice  of the OPs a number of discrepancies vide letters dated 4.3.2020 and 9.6.2020 but to no avail. It is alleged that during bidding process it was informed to all the bidders that the flats are transferable and very soon same shall be made free hold  but the in the allotment letter dated as per clause 9 and 10 the allotment was made on lease basis for 99 year restricting the allottees to  transfer the unit in question for the next 10 years. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.    
4.     The Opposite Parties in their reply stated that the complainant applied for the allotment of 2BR under self financing scheme on 21.5.2016 under Scheme B i.e. Assured Allotment Scheme by depositing an initial amount of Rs.6,90,000/- on lease hold basis. The complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of allotment of flat in question.   The OPs issued the acceptance cum demand letter dated 10.6.2016 for the allotment of DU No. 204-A(FF)   on 10.6.2016 asking the complainant to deposit the  remaining payment as prescribed within 90 days. The construction and development work at site except top layer of road and horticulture work i.e. construction of site was completed in the month of December 2019 and accordingly the complainant was issued the final letter of allotment dated 17.12.2019 by offering him physical possession of the DU/flat within a period of 60 days by depositing the amount as demanded and further by completing all such formalities. On 23.1.2020 on completion of all formalities the complainant took possession of the flat without any protest and complaint. It is denied that there is any time limit to hand over the possession to the allottees. Whereas under the general condition i.e. clause No. XIII, it was provided that allottee shall be entitled to deliver possession of the unit/flat only after he completes all formalities, paid all the dues, furnished or executed all the documents as required, or prescribed under the scheme of allotment. Thus, there is no time limit for handing over the possession. However, the constructions delayed due to force majeure conditions which is beyond the control of the OPs. It is averred that the flat was  allotted to the complainant on “as is where is” basis and it is specifically provided under clause XIII of brochure that the board will not entertain any claim for addition, or alteration or regarding material or any complaints whatsoever, regarding the price of units or its design or material etc.  The complainant never raised any objection before applying for allotment of flat or during the continuation of construction and further at the time of accepting the possession and now he is estopped to take contrary plea when flats are constructed and occupied by him. However, complaints lodged by the complainant were duly attended and rectified. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8.     Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.
9. On perusal of both the complaints, it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that, the OPs have failed to hand over the possession of the flat in time and the flat in question does not contain facilities as promised by them. It is also alleged that the OPs did not convert the unit in question in freehold hold as per their promise.
10. After thorough examination of the case file of the both complaints, we are of the view that Chandigarh Housing Board is providing low cost housing to the people of Chandigarh on strictly “No profit no loss basis” with a view to serve especially the economically weaker section of the society. It is also observed that the OPs are not indulging into any kind of private business being a State and as such there is no motive to earn any un-accrued and illegal profit at the cost of anyone. Moreover, the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he has been overcharged by the OPs as compared to any other person or any other allottee or he has been treated under any different set of rules and regulations. The complainant has also not adduced any documentary evidence that the OPs shall handover the possession within three years. As per Clause 25 of the scheme the development works/construction was to be completed approximately within 36 months from the date of issuance of acceptance-cum- demand letter subject to force majeure circumstances.  The relevant portion of clause 25 of the scheme is reproduced as under:-

     “The period of the development works/construction at sites shall be approximately 36 months from the date of issuance of Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter subject to force majeure and circumstances beyond the control of the CHB and any restraints, restrictions from any court/authority(ies). If due to any force majeure conditions, Govt. instructions or due to any reasons beyond the control of CHB, the CHB is unable to deliver the unit to the allottee, the CHD shall be liable to refund to the allottee the amounts received alongwith saving bank interest @ 4% p.a. and shall not be liable to pay any compensation.”

 

11.  The version of OPs is that due to force majeure circumstances the possession could not be handed over in time, to which we are fully agreed as the additional time of around of six months was taken for removal of high tension wires, which has been duly proved on record by the OPs by placing on record Annexure OP-2 to  OP-7, the communication exchanged between the electricity department and the OPs for removal of the poles at the works of construction. So, delay of around six months occurred due to the aforesaid force majeure circumstances which was beyond the control of the OPs. Thus, there appears to be no intentional delay on the part of OPs. Even otherwise delay of 6 months is a reasonable delay. As far as the prayer of complainant for issue of directions to the OPs for making the unit land in question freehold basis is concerned  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Estate Officer vs Charanjit Kaur case decided on 7 September, 2021 held as under

“24. Since the respondents are already in possession of the sites as lessee on 99 years basis, it cannot be said that the appellant was deficient in providing any service, which even if used in a liberal sense would not include transfer of title in an immovable property. Thus, the consumer fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property.……”

 

12.      In view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Estate Officer vs Charanjit Kaur case (supra), wherein, it has been specifically held that the Consumer Fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property, resultantly, we are of the considered view that the District Commission lacks jurisdiction to give any directions to the opposite parties in matters relating to conversion of the plot of the complainant from leasehold to free hold site. Hence, we do not find any merit in both the aforementioned complaints and the same are liable to be dismissed.
13. As far as the allegation of complainant that there were various discrepancies in the flat. It is held that if  there were any kind of snags or deficiency in the flat in question then the complainant should not have immediately taken the possession and rather he should have lodged his protest and only after getting the snags removed he should have taken the possession. But he failed to prove on record that at the time of taking possession he lodged any protest with the OPs. Thus, there is no merit in this plea of the complainant.    
14.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, both the consumer complaints, being meritless, are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/ appropriate Forum.
15. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]

President

Sd/-

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member