Punjab

StateCommission

FA/520/2014

Sulesh Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust Ludhiana. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

                                                           First Appeal No.520 of 2014                                                                      

                                     Date of institution: 6.5.2014  

                             Date of Decision: 15.7.2015   

 

Sulesh Aggarwal s/o R.K. Aggarwal r/o # 1121, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana (Present & Correspondence Address)

Appellant/Complainant

 

                                      Versus

 

Executive Officer, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.

Respondent/OP

 

First Appeal against the order dated 29.1.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant    :         Sh. R.K. Aggarwal, father of appellant

          For the respondent:         Mrs. Kavita Arora, Advocate  

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.1.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.476 dated 8.7.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed directing the respondent/OP(hereinafter referred as OP) to overhaul the account of the complainant after serving a due notice and after giving him an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, to settle the account and make the pending demand, if any, qua arrears of the sale price of the plot in question within 45 days from the receipt of copy of order, and then to issue NOC qua the flat in question to the complainant after receiving the amount due, if any, within 30 days after depositing the amount by the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                A consumer complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the OP alleging that flat No. 5, S.F. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana in a self financing scheme was allotted to the complainant vide memo/letter No.  LIT/SB/2891 dated 17.8.05. Due to adverse family circumstances, the complainant could not deposit 1/4^th of sale money on due date i.e. 17.9.2005. The Local Self Govt. had condoned the delay in payment of 1/4^th sale money as per Government Instructions dated 19.4.2005 on payment of 2% surcharge, accordingly, the OPs demanded Rs. 4,17,948/- vide their memo No. 4117 dated 12.5.06 without giving the details and in the absence of the details, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,42,450/- vide receipt No. 406067 dated 2.6.2006 to avoid interest, which was accepted by the OP. The OP handed over the possession of the flat to the complainant on 12.8.2009 as nothing was due. According to para No. 12, the allottee shall be entitled to the delivery of the possession after he had completed all the formalities and paid all the dues at the time of handing over the possession but the OP issued a demand notice of Rs. 75,498/-. The complainant informed the Trust that no balance is outstanding against the complainant, however, the Ops gave the details vide their letter dated 26.7.2011 showing the outstanding amount as Rs. 71,825/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 53,013/- was excess draw amount because penalty of Rs. 29,000/- was not given and surcharge was charged as Rs. 17,100/- against a sum of Rs. 2900/- and interest was charged @ 24% instead of 18%, which amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the OP not to insist for payment of principal and interest component, to pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental harassment for six years, pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation and also issue NOC.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed; complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint; complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands; no cause of action had accrued to the complainant to file the complaint and that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. On merits, allotment of the flat to the complainant was admitted. It was denied that the Local Self Govt. had condoned the delay regarding the deposit of the amount by the complainant within time on 2% surcharge. Besides surcharge the allottee had also to pay interest @ 18% for the delayed period. The delay of the payment was mentioned in the allotment letter. It was denied that the possession was handed over to the complainant after payment of all the dues. It was admitted that the OP had raised the demand of Rs. 75,498/- but there was clerical mistake in fact this amount was Rs. 44,729/-, which include interest upto 26.8.2013. There was no deficiency in services on the part of the Op. The complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of R.K. Aggarwal Ex. CX-1, authorisation Ex. C-1, allotment letter Ex. C-2, demand notice Ex. C-3, intimation regarding return of draft Ex. C-4, letter dt. 19.4.10 Ex. C-5, balance payment due details Ex. C-6, letter dt. 8.6.12 Ex. C-7. On the other hand, the OP had tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kumar Ex. RW, notice sheet copy Ex. R-1, letter dt. 17.8.05 Ex. R-2, letter dt. 19.4.05 Ex. R-3, letter dt. 28.5.13 Ex. R-4.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was disposed of as referred above.

7.                Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP has filed the present appeal.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9.                In the appeal it was submitted that although the complaint was partly allowed but the District Forum had not given specific findings that after receipt of the amount of Rs. 4,17,948/- a sum of Rs. 3,42,450/- was paid on 2.6.2006. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 18,812/- which the OP had demanded and had raised the demand of exaggerated amount. A reference can be made to the letter dated 28.5.2013, memo No. 2260, vide which a sum of Rs. 42,580/- was demanded. A sum of Rs. 18,812/- was admitted by the complainant and paid the same, which was not accepted. A sum of Rs. 23,768/- was calculated as interest from 2.6.06 to 2.6.13. In case the payment was shown and paid in the year 2013 then certainly, the complainant was required to pay the interest on that amount. Even then the District Forum has given a clear cut directions to the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant in the presence of the complainant qua the arrears of the sale price and after that NOC was to be issued. We do not see any illegality in the order because it is a matter of accounts and in case the account is settled in the presence of both the parties then the matter can came to an end. In case no notice has been received from the Op by the complainant then he has the right to execute the order. In our opinion, the order is quite justified. We do not see any infirmity in the same and the same is hereby affirmed.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

11.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.7.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

  (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                                                (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

July 15, 2015.                                                                        (Surinder Pal Kaur)

as                                                                                                 Member