Haryana

StateCommission

A/718/2014

Lt. Col. Ranjit Singh (Retd.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No:                    718 of 2014

                                                Date of Institution:       13.08.2014

                                                Date of Decision:         09.11.2016

 

 

 

Lt. Col. Ranjit Singh (Retd.) son of Col. Harnam Singh, resident of 2187, Jal Vayu Vihar, Sector 67, Mohali.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization, South Hutments, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011.

2.      Project Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization, Vikram Vihar, Sector 27, Panchkula.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                       

         

Argued by:          Lt. Col. Ranjit Singh in person

                             Shri Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the respondents

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI,JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated July 11^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed. 

2.      On 02.11.2004, Lt. Col. Ranjit Singh-complainant booked a flat in the Housing Project at Sector 20, Panchkula of Army Welfare Housing Organisation and its functionaries-opposite parties.   Thereafter, the complainant vide letter (Annexure P-6) changed his registration from Sector 20, Panchkula to Sector 27, Panchkula.  The complainant made full payment to the opposite parties.  The possession of the flat was proposed to be delivered in the year 2008 but the opposite parties failed to do so.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite parties, in their written version, submitted that Army Welfare Housing Organization was a ‘No Profit, No Loss Organization’. Projects were executed by initially charging Rs.90,000/- as application money from the applicants.  The construction commenced on 22.10.2007.  The site of construction was near the bed of river Ghaggar and at the time of excavation, loose boulders were encountered. Fresh soil investigations had to be effected necessitating a change in the design of the foundation.  The design of the foundation was, thus, changed and new drawings were handed over to the contractor in May, 2008.  In the year 2008, the monsoon was extremely heavy and no work could take place from June, 2008 to August, 2008 as the trenches dug for foundation were filled with water.  Thereafter, ban on mining was imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, leading to non availability of basic construction material like sand, bajri etc.  Some delay was caused on account of revised norms by HAREDA communicated to the opposite parties vide letter dated 09.03.2011.  The provision of electricity feeder was also delayed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).  Normally, the construction is completed within three years but in the present case, delays were caused on account of reasons beyond the control of opposite parties.

4.      The District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint. 

5.      The only issue in this case is with regard to the delay in handing over of possession of the flat to the complainant and compensation payable for delay in handing over possession. 

6.      In a similarly situated case titled as Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.) Vs. Adjutant General and Others, Revision Petition No.1982 of 2014,decided on February 16^th, 2015 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in this very project, in which same stand has been taken by the opposite parties in not giving the possession of the flat to the complainants therein, which has been taken in the instant complaint. The Hon’ble National Commission allowed complaint and granted compensation for delay in completion and handing over possession and held as under:-

          “16……It is not explained why there was change of design.  That is a unilateral decision  taken by the OPs.  There is not even an iota of evidence that consent  of  the OPs was also taken.  The allottees were not taken in confidence.  The case of the petitioner pertains to the year 2005-06.  The OPs  took two years in approving the design.  Day-to-day delay was never explained.  This Commission has to reckon with reality.  The OPs have been economical with truth.  When the fate of so many persons was involved, all the army personnel had spent  their  hard-earned  whole-life money, therefore, the OPs should not have acted like a fish, but they needed a bicycle to  expedite the matter.  The said wastage of two years’ time is dictatorial, arbitrary, unjust and smacks of arrogance.  It must be borne in mind that the allottees left no stone unturned in protecting our lives at  the risk of their own.

           

17.    Secondly, there was ban on mining.  Counsel for the OPs invited our  attention towards  the  order  passed  by  the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.  This is a Civil Misc. No. 10545 of 2011, in CWP No. 4758 of 2008.  This order was passed on 05.08.2011. The counsel for the OPs has tried to mis-interpret this order. Its relevant para, runs as follows :-

          “This application moved by the State of Haryana seeks extension of time for implementation of the directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 15.05.2009 and 04.09.2009 and to allow the mining activities during the interregnum on the conditions imposed by us vide the subsequent order dated 04.03.2011 passed in Civil Misc. No. 20624 of 2010.

          It’s concluded para No.8, runs as follows:-

          (8) We find from the record that the time granted by us till 31.07.2011 to the State of Haryana vide order dated 04.03.2011 was actually not availed by the State Authorities on account of the ad-interim stay order granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court soon thereafter on 18.03.2011 and it continued to operate till the dismissal of the SLP on 15.07.2011.  In these circumstances and when the prayer in this application is merely for extension of period for short term mining for the reasons beyond the control of the State Government, we extend the time 31.12.2011 on the same terms and conditions as contained in our order dated 04.03.2011.

          18.    It is, thus, clear that the  Supreme Court  had allowed the mining  activities  during the interregnum  on the condition imposed by the Hon’ble Court.  By  no  stretch  of imagination, it can be held that there was mining ban which started from the year 2008.

          19.    However, the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana, SLP (C ) No. 19628-19629 of  2009, decided on 27.02.2012  reveals  that  there was ban on mining from the year 2010 to 2012 only.   The OPs have failed to explain the day-to-day delay  for the  period from 2006 to 2010.  The written submissions filed by the Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh clearly goes to show that the construction process  of   the project  as on third April, 2010 was 27% against 28%, while  the allottees  had   already  paid  78% of the tentative cost of the  Dwelling  Unit,  as per C-17 (Colly) and C-3.  If there was some delay  on  the  part of the contractor, the OPs should have taken action  against him, vide penalty clause.  Ban on the mining was done in March,  2010.  Had  the  OPSs  constructed the flats, till 2008 or at the most,  by  March, 2010, no  problem would have cropped up.  Counsel  for  the OPs  contended that due to ban on mining, the OPs could not get sand, bricks  and other construction materials.  Have the flats  been  constructed  till March, 2010, this argument  would  have  paled  into  insignificance.  Undoubtedly, there was delay of two years’  for  mining  ban.

          20.    The OPs could  claim benefit of two years’  from March, 2010, till middle of 2012.  Had the flats been constructed in time, the petitioner would have got 20% rebate.  As  per  the document, Annexure R-15, wherein beneficial clause 2(i) is mentioned, is reproduced below :

          “However, if the society/organization completes the construction within three (3) years of the date of offer of possession as mentioned above, 20% rebate on price of land would be given and would be adjusted towards the future installments”.

          21.    Again, no proof has been produced that there were torrential rains during  the  above  said period  which obstructed the completion of  the construction.  Succinctly stated, the OPs can claim benefit of two years’,  out of five years’ delay.

 

          22.    The  third   ground of  delay  is stated  to  be  because of  the  attitude of  HUDA in respect of non-rendering of electricity connection. There is an agreement between HUDA and the complainant,  dated  18.07.2006, wherein, under clause 5 of the said agreement, it was held as under :-

          “HUDA will provide only 11 KV line around the periphery of each group housing site and further provision for providing transformer of required capacity, 11 KV cable, metering equipment and other allied accessories will have to be made by each Group Housing Society/Organisation itself as per its load requirement within its premises at its own cost and as per the standards/ specification laid down by HSEB(HVPNL/ HPGCL)”.

          23.    However, vide letter dated 07.10.2011, at the eleventh hour, HUDA refused to give electricity and asked the OPs to have their own arrangement for electricity.  From 08.12.2011, electricity was provided to the flat owners in July, 2013. They  got  the possession  of  the  premises  in July, 2013,  after  a  delay of more than one-and-a-half years, from 08.12.2011.”

7.      Against the aforesaid order, Army Welfare Housing Organization and others-opposite parties preferred Special Leave Petitions No.15118-15122/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on March 31^st, 2016 and the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi was upheld.  Even review petitions No.2472-2477 of 2016 filed by the opposite parties were also dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2016, which is reproduced as under:-

          “We have examined the grounds urged in support of the prayer for review.  We find no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant recall of our order dated 31^st March, 2016.  The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”

 

8.      Indisputably, the complainant booked a flat with the opposite parties.  He made all the payments to the opposite parties.  He was given possession on July 17^th, 2014 vide Possession Certificate (Annexure A-10) by the opposite parties after a gap of two and half years from December 08^th, 2011.  It is clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Thus, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.  Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed. In Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.) Vs. Adjutant General and Others (supra), Hon’ble National Commission granted interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainants.  Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum for a period of two and half years on the amount deposited by the complainant, from the date of respective deposits till the date of realization within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization.

 

Pronounced 09.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President