Chandigarh Housing Board, through its Accounts Officer, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9/D, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Dilbagh (infact Dilbag)....Respondent/complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“ In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party in refunding the amount to the complainant, without paying any interest thereupon, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed.  We order accordingly.  The opposite party is directed as under :-

i)      to refund the deposited amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest at the saving bank rate w.e.f. 4.12.2010 (i.e. one month after the draw of lots) till actual payment to the complainant.

ii)     to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from  date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs”.

2.            3.           

4.           

5.                The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that it had floated a Housing Scheme under the name and style of Chandigarh Administration, on 14.01.2008. It was stated that the said Scheme was marred by numerous litigations, on various issues, raised by the applicants, as well as general public, from time to time. It was further stated that, on 04.11.2010, the draw of lots was conducted, in respect of the aforesaid Scheme, at the Auditorium Hall of GMCH, Sector 32,Chandigarh, in the presence of the Property Allotment Committee,Chandigarh, and the general public. It was further stated that a total number of 3930 applicants emerged successful, in the said draw of lots. Those applicants were registered for the allotment of flats, under the said scheme, for various types of flats, which were provided to them. 

6.              

7.           

8.            

9.           

10.         

11.        a Housing Scheme under the name and style of Chandigarh Administration, on 14.01.2008. He further submitted that the draw of lots, with regard to the allotment of flats, under the said Scheme, was held on 04.11.2010. He further submitted that, no doubt, in the written version, filed by the Opposite Party, in the District Forum, it was stated that the amount of the complainant was not refunded to him, before March, 2013, due to the reason that he submitted an undertaking to the effect that the same (earnest money), be retained, as the matter with regard to the allotment of flats, to the unsuccessful applicants, was under consideration of the Chandigarh Administration, and that he would not claim any interest, on the earnest money, yet, the same was stated inadvertently, by it (Opposite Party), on account of the pendency of similar cases, before the District Forum. He further submitted that, infact, when the draw of lots, aforesaid, was held on 04.11.2010, the complainant was not successful therein, as a result whereof, his name was kept in the waiting list no.110, at serial No.2405. He further submitted that the said waiting list was to remain operative, for a period of one year, and, as such, the complainant was only entitled to the refund of earnest money, deposited by him, after the expiry of a period of one year, from the date of such preparation of the list, as per Clause (IV) under Paragraph VIII of the brochure. He further submitted that the earnest money, to the tune of Rs.70,000/-, was ultimately, refunded to the complainant/respondent, after the Chandigarh Administration, took the decision that it was not possible to allot flats to the applicants, whose names figured in the waiting list. He further submitted that the District Forum, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, and, thus, fell into a grave error, in coming to the conclusion that the respondent/complainant was entitled to interest at Saving Bank Rate, from 04.12.2010 i.e. one month, after the draw of lots was held, wherein he was not successful, whereas, on the other hand, he (complainant) was entitled to interest at the Saving Bank Rate, after one month, from the date of expiry of the period of waiting list i.e. from 04.12.2011 till March 2013. 

12.        13.            l), to March 2013. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It may be stated here, that in the District Forum, no document was produced, to show that the name of the complainant, figured in the waiting list, in the draw of lots, conducted by the appellant/Opposite Party. Even, no document was produced before the District Forum, that any intimation was sent to the complainant/respondent, that his name figured, in the waiting list, prepared by the Chandigarh Housing Board. In case, the name of the respondent/complainant, figured in the waiting list, he was required to be intimated individually, by way of communication, in that regard. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.               Admittedly, the complainant applied for a one Bed Room Flat, from 04.12.2010 to March 2013, as per the aforesaid Clause. As stated above, in the absence of any proof, that the name of the respondent/ complainant, figured in the waiting list, and that he was communicated with regard to that factum, by the appellant/Opposite Party, the District Forum, in our considered opinion, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that he (complainant/respondent) was entitled to interest, at the Saving Bank Rate, on the amount of Rs.70,000/-, from 04.12.2010),

15.         16.         modified.

17.        

                      The appellant/opposite party shall pay to the complainant, interest at the Saving Bank Rate, prevailing on the date of refund, on the amount of Rs.70,000/-, from 04.12.2010 

                     The direction of the District Forum, ordering the appellant/Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/-, to the complainant/respondent, is set aside, as the same had already been received by him, before filing the Consumer Complaint.

                   The appellant/opposite party shall pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum, to the respondent/complainant,

                    This order shall be complied with, by the appellant/opposite party, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @9% P.A., instead of @18% P.A., awarded by the District Forum, on the amount of Rs.70,000/-,

                     Any other relief granted, and direction given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, and in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside.   

18.        

19.        

Pronounced.

March 18, 2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

Rg