DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 605 of 2010] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 20.09.2010 Date of Decision : 29.08.2012 -------------------------------- Smt. Krishna Sharma wife of Shri S.N. Sharma, Ex-Allottee/ Owner Semi Industrial Plot/ Bay Shop No. 384, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainant VERSUS Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Pt. Randhir Sharma, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. M.S. Rana, Govt. Pleader for Opposite Party. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the grounds that, the Complainant was allotted a semi indl. Plot/ bay shop no. 384 in sector 44-D, Chandigarh vide letter no. 4750/CIL No. 4765-CCA-E, dated 9.3.89 on lease hold basis for a total premium of Rs.7.31 lacs. out of which 25% was to be paid at the time of possession, which was paid on account of Rs.1.82,750/-. The balance amount of Rs.5,48,250/- was to be paid in three yearly installments of Rs.2,27,186/-. As the yearly installments of Rs.2,27,186/- totaling to Rs.6,81,558/- actually exceeded the 75% component of the total premium of Rs.5,48,250/- meaning thereby that these installments included the interest component also. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,75,756/- on 3.6.92 in addition to the various bank drafts amounting to Rs.4,47,300/- with the Estate Office, which was not encashed by the Opposite Party on the ground that the installments were not on time and hence, they were entitled to resume the allotted site. This issue gave rise to a litigation for which the Complainant had to approach various Authorities including Hon’ble High court. Thereafter, the Complainant also made a representation before the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, for staying the operation of the Resumption orders passed by the Estate Officer and also the orders passed by Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. The Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh in this matter was pleased to pass the order dated 29.12.93 in favour of the Complainant, the operative part of the order is reproduced below:- “I accept the revision, set-aside the impugned order, restored the site to the owner subject to the condition that the entire outstanding amount which reduced forfeiture of 2%^ is paid within 30 days reckonable from the dispatch of this order, failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall come into operation. No interest and penalty shall however, be charged in this case as the petitioner has deposited substantial amount due from him.” The Complainant claims that the order of the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh was very much clear, yet the Opposite Party failed to implement the order and rather, kept on lingering on the matter. The Complainant had also given a representation dated 10.4.97 which was received in the office of the Opposite Party on the same date as is proved from the stamp on the representation Annexure C-2. The Complainant having failed to elicit any response from the Opposite Party filed a complaint before the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, which had upheld vide its order dated 11.3.97 (Annexure C-3) for restoration of the site in favour of the complainant. However, the Complainant herself agreed for interest as per Rule 12(2) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. The site was restored. The Complainant claims to have deposited all due installments along with interest as such that the lease deed was executed on 14.3.2003. The Complainant claims that ever since 1997, she had been demanding the statement of account, but the Opposite Party failed to supply the same, despite many letters and reminders. The photocopy of the letters are annexed as Annexure C-4 (colly). It was only on 16.6.09 that the Opposite Party responded on No the subject regarding No Due Certificate and was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.4,03,659/- on account of interest up to 30.6.2009. The Complainant in order to expedite the matter and get a no due certificate deposited the amount under protest as she was in a grave urgency for this document for some personal reasons. The Opposite Party had also attached statement of account showing the beak down of interest charged from the Complainant, till 30.6.09 from the date of allotment. The same is annexed as Annexure C-6 with the complaint. The Complainant claims that she was shocked to peruse the statement because the Complainant had been demanding the No Due Certificate ever since 1997, and the delay was on the part of the Opposite Party who had intentionally delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally charged interest @24% p.a. from the Complainant in an utter disregard of the order dated 11.3.97 of the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, contrary to the same. The Complainant also claims that after having received the No Due Certificate she disposed off the site in question to one Sh. Parmod Kumar Mahajan and Complainant had annexed an affidavit of the buyer of the site in question about having no claim towards the amount that the Complainant seeks to get refunded paid in excess according to her. The Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that the Opposite Party had exceeded the mandate of the orders of the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh dated 11.3.97, through which the site was restored to her and there was no order with regard to the interest to be charged from the Complainant @ 24%. The Complainant thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, has prayed for the following relief: - [a] The charging of interest of Rs.4,03,659/- be held illegal and the Opposite Party be directed to refund the same to the Complainant/ applicant immediately. [b] The Complainant be declared to be entitled for interest on refunded amount @24%. [c] This Hon’ble Forum may also pass any other order which it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. [d] The cost of this complaint be also awarded in favour of the Complainant; The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by his short affidavit. 2. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer nor the Estate Office a service provider as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in the judgment titled as “Amarjit Singh Versus Chandigarh Administration and Others, decided on 17.03.2009”. Secondly, as the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of allotment, and failed to make the payment of second installment, hence, the interest is chargeable. The Opposite Party has also claimed that in case of any late payments, an interest @24% is to be paid as per the notification dated 22.7.93. It is further stated that this Forum has got no jurisdiction as the Complainant had to seek the remedy of appeal as per the Lease Hold Rules i.e. under Rule 12 before the Ld. Chief Administrator against the demand of interest vide Memo dated 16.6.2009. However, the other averments of the present complaint are admitted and reproduced in the preliminary objections as the same being matter of record. On merits, the Opposite Party has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply, the Opposite Parties had denied all other factors except for the ones that are part of the record. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. 3. The Complainant has filed her reply/ replication 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 replication. 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 Complainant and learned Govt. Pleader for the Opposite Party, we have come to the following conclusions. 5. The preliminary objections taken by the Opposite Party mentions about the judgment “Amarjit Singh Versus Chandigarh Administration and Others, decided on 17.03.2009 wherein as per the Opposite Party it is held that the complainant is not a consumer qua it. We have gone through the judgment quoted above. From the bare perusal of the judgment, it is found in para No.25, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the opposite party/appellant could charge interest @ 12% in case of default in payment as mentioned under Section 12(3A) of the Leasehold Rules as on date of auction and therefore clause(4) of General Terms & Conditions of Sale and clause (5) of the letter of allotment, providing for payment of default interest @ 24% p.a. was illegal and unauthorized. These observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court have clearly settled the issue weather the demand of the Opposite Party of 24% interest on the arrears on default payment was just or not. It was also mentioned that the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, had by notification, fixed default interest @ 24% p.a. Suffice it to say that the rate of default interest mentioned in Rule (3A) as on the date of auction, would alone apply. If Rule 12(3A) was not amended, increasing the rate of default interest from 12% to 24% p.a. as on the date of auction, then the rate of interest stipulated in Rule 12(3A) as it stood on the date of auction will apply. The appellant cannot charge default interest at a rate higher than what was provided in the said rule. If any higher rate has been charged by way of default interest and it is not corrected, it is open to the lessees to seek relief in accordance with law. 6. In the light of the above judgment, the present complaint of the complainant is a rightful attempt to claim the amount of interest charged @ 24% even though the order dated 11.3.1997 of the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh has clearly mentioned the last sentence that the Estate Office should intimate this amount to the petitioner with due dispatch and on payment thereof the site shall stand restored. It is also important to mention here that while going through these orders of the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, a specific query was put to the Opposite Party by this Forum vide its order dated 25.10.2011. In reply to which the Opposite Party filed a detailed answer which is duly signed by Assistant Estate Officer and is marked as Ex.’Z’ and in this document itself on page 4, a specific admission is found on the part of the Opposite Party which is reproduced as under: “As per the above orders of Chief Administrator dated 11.03.1997 fresh account statement has been prepared and a sum of Rs.5,67,177/- on account of premium was due upto 03.04.1997 which had been paid by the appellant. But no demand notice was issued by the office at that time as per the direction of the Chief Administrator” This reply was filed on 2.1.2012 alongwith account statement. It is very much apparent from the admission of the Opposite Party that no demand notice was issued to the complainant as desired by the Chief Administrator vide its order dated 11.3.1997. Hence, the amount of Rs.4,03,659/- vide memo No.859939, dated 16.6.2009, demanded by the Opposite Party from the complainant, vide demand draft No.890748, dated 23.6.2009, is illegal, arbitrary and against the spirit of the order dated 11.3.1997 of the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. As the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 17.3.2009 heavily relied upon by the Opposite Party is actually completely contrary to the stand adopted by the Opposite Party. The Hon’ble Apex Court had upheld the right of the Complainant to seek remedy in accordance with law in case the Opposite Party had charged an interest @24% per annum in case of default of payment. 7. In the light of above observations, nothing more is required to be cited, and finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the present complaint deserves to be allowed. 8. Hence, the present complaint is allowed and Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,03,659/- deposited by the complainant on 23.6.2009 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of deposit till it is actually paid. 9. The Opposite Party is also burdened with a cost of litigation of Rs.7000/-. 10. The Opposite Party is directed to comply with the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.4,03,659/- deposited by the complainant from the date of its deposit i.e. 23.6.2009 till it is actually paid. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 29th August, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
