Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/244/2018

Chandigarh Housing Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Meenakshi Chandel - Opp.Party(s)

Arjun Kundra, Adv.

28 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	244 of 2018
Date of Institution	11.09.2018
Date of Decision	28.02.2019

Chandigarh Housing Board – through its Chairman – cum – Managing Director, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                     …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

                           Versus

1]  Meenakshi Chandel w/o Sh.Rajeev Kumar Chandel, r/o H.No.3243, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.     

                        ....Respondent No.1/Complainant.

2] Axis Bank through its Manager, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

                        .... Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2.

BEFORE:             JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Arun Kundra, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 03.12.2018.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.07.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.421 of 2017 qua Opposite Party No.1, which reads as under :-

“12.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 alone, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]    To refund the amount of penalty wrongly charged by it after re-calculating the penalty again carefully;

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

                       [c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

                              The Complainant qua Opposite Party No.2 stands                             dismissed.

 13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions as in sub-para [a] and [c] above.”  

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

“1.       Mrs. Meenakshi Chandel, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Chandigarh Housing Board and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that the Opposite Party No.1 has arbitrarily charged the interest on the payment of installments remitted by the Complainant in regard to allotment of H.No.64-C, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh. There was absolutely no delay in remittance of the amount, as per the chart detailed hereinbelow, and if at all there was any delay, it might be on account of casual approach on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

Due Date	D.D. Date	Date of Payment as per receipts of Axis Bank	Amounts	Remarks
24.05.2012	22.05.2012	23.05.2012	6,84,750/-	21,912/- wrongly charged
24.04.2013	24.04.2013	24.04.2013	13,29,681/-	Rs.18,634/- wrongly charged
24.10.2013	19.11.2013	19.11.2013	2,50,000/-	Rs.16,195/- wrongly charged
24.10.2013	19.12.2013	19.12.2013	2,50,000/-	Rs.15,769/- wrongly charged.

Accordingly, a legal notice dated 09.05.2016 was served upon the Opposite Party No.1, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.”

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.1 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“ Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement, inter alia, pleading that the Complainant failed to deposit the installments within time, as per the Schedule of Payment and agreed terms and conditions. Thus, the penalty (interest) was charged by the answering Opposite Party on account of delayed payments made by the Complainant, which was in conformity with the terms and conditions/clauses (clause no.3, 4, 5 & 8) of the Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.” 

4.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.2 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“4.       Opposite Party No.2 resisted the Complaint and filed its separate written version, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that amount of Rs.6,84,750/- was cleared in Chandigarh Housing Board Account on 23.05.2012, Rs.13,29,681/- was cleared on 24.04.2013, Rs.2,50,000/- was cleared on 21.11.2013 and Rs.2,50,000/- was cleared on 20.12.2013. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing Counsel for the contesting parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, partly allowed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1, as stated above.

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 (Chandigarh Housing Board).

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.             Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Forum while passing the impugned order failed to note that chart/table made by respondent No.1/complainant is incorrect and perverse and not consistent with the acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 25.04.2012 and the correct chart/table is reproduced at page No.11 of the appeal file. He further submitted that respondent No.1/complainant herself defaulted in making timely payments, therefore, Chandigarh Housing Board has rightly charged interest/penalty on account of delayed payments made by him. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

10.           On the other hand, Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1.

11.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. It is admitted fact that Smt.Meenakshi Chandel (complainant) applied under the Self Financing Housing Scheme – 2010 vide application No.7304, therefore, the Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter was issued vide letter dated 25.04.2012. Thereafter, allotment letter was issued vide letter dated 01.01.2015 (Annexure OP-1/A) in favour of the complainant. The relevant terms and conditions/clauses of Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter dated 25.04.2012 (Annexure OP-1/B) are reproduced below :-

“3. According to Para-VIII of the Brochure of the Scheme under the heading “Price & Mode of Payment”, you are required to deposit the amount as per schedule of payment given below :-

Price in lacs	Amount (Rs.)
Tentative price of the third floor flat	Rs.47,39,000/-
Initial deposit	Rs.5,00,000/-
At the time of registration i.e. within 30 days of the issue of Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter (ACDL)	Rs.6,84,750/-
1st Instalment within 6 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.13,29,681/-
2nd instalment within 12 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.13,29,681/-
3rd instalment within 18 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.13,29,681/-
At the time of handing over the possession	100% of chargeable price minus price already paid.

 

4. x x x x x In case, the amount is deposited through a demand draft, the credit will be allowed from the date of its realization. You should, therefore, in your own interest deposit the demand draft with the above said Bank well in advance, i.e. at least 3 working days before the due date so as to ensure that the amount is credited to the Board’s account before the due date of payment.”

 According to the appellant/Chandigarh Housing Board, the complainant failed to deposit the instalments within time, as per the aforesaid schedule of payment and agreed terms and conditions, as such, the penalty (interest) was charged by the Chandigarh Housing Board on account of delayed payments made by the complainant. The appellant/Chandigarh Housing Board also stated that the Forum while passing the impugned order, the chart/table made by respondent No.1/complainant is incorrect. To prove this fact, the appellant/Chandigarh Housing Board has made a chart at page No.11 of the appeal, which reads thus :-

Price in lacs	Amount (Rs.)	Due Date	Date of Payment – Our stand	Date of Payment in the impugned judgment.
Tentative price of the third floor flat	Rs.47,39,000/-
Initial Deposit	Rs.5,00,000/-
At the time of registration i.e. within 30 days of the issue of Acceptance-cum-demand letter (ACDL)	Rs.6,84,750/-	24.05.2012	25.05.2012	23.05.2012
1st installment within 6 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.13,29,681/-
2nd installment within 12 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.13,29,681/-	24.04.2013	26.04.2013	24.04.2013
3rd installment within 18 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.13,29,681/-	24.10.2013	25.10.2013, 21.11.2013 and 20.12.2013	19.11.2013 and 19.12.2013
At the time of handing over the possession	100% of chargeable price minus price already paid.

 

A bare perusal of the aforesaid chart clearly reveals that Rs.6,84,750/- (registration amount), which was due on 24.05.2012 has been credited on 25.05.2012, as such, there was only one day delay in making the payment. It is also no doubt true that on the first instalment of Rs.13,29,681/-, no interest was charged by the Chandigarh Housing Board, as the same was paid in time. With regard to second instalment of Rs.13,29,681/-, which was due on 24.04.2013 has been credited on 26.04.2013 i.e. after a delay of two days.  With regard to third instalment of Rs.13,29,681/-,  which was due on 24.10.2013 has been credited, as per PLA record on 25.10.2013, 21.11.2013 & 20.12.2013 respectively. Not only this, even the complainant sent a legal notice dated 09.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) through his Counsel, in which, it has been admitted that there was only one day delay in making the payment of Rs.6,84,750/- ; no delay in making the payment of Rs.13,29,681/- ; two days delay in making the payment of Rs.13,29,681/-  and the last instalment of Rs.13,29,681/-, which was due on 24.10.2013, and out of the aforesaid total amount of Rs.13,29,681/-, an  amount of Rs.8,29,681/- was paid on 22.10.2013 i.e. before the due date and out of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on 19.11.2013 with a delay of one month and remaining balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on 19.12.2013 with a delay of two months. Therefore, the complainant requested to charge the interest only for one month on Rs.2,50,000/- and for two months on the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

13.           In view of the aforesaid paragraph, we are of the view that there is certainly a delay of making the payment by the complainant. However, the interest on delayed amount charged by the Chandigarh Housing Board was excessive in nature and the Chandigarh Housing Board is to charge the interest only for the delayed period and not for full month or so as held by this Commission vide order dated 17.04.2018 in the case titled as Wing Commander (Retd.) Sumer Singh Savant Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, Consumer Complaint No.196 of 2017. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus :-

   “Clearly for delay in remitting installments, the rate of interest being charged by the Opposite Party is exceedingly on the higher side, the same being 18% to 24% depending upon the period of delay, as discussed above. Such rate of interest is almost 3 times of the fixed deposit receipt rates. Under above circumstances, when despite this exorbitant rate of interest, the Opposite Party instead of charging interest for actual period of delay, charged the same for a month and so on, the same clearly is highly unreasonable and amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party. The equities are required to be balanced by not enriching one party at the cost of other. As per ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case titled Commissioner, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. Laxmi Nath Misra & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2011 decided on 03.01.2011, interest is payable for actual period of delay. Para 8 of the said judgment reads thus:-

“8. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and modify the order of the High Court as under :

(a) Having regard to the fact that the entire principal amount has been paid on 12.6.2007 and 12.12.2008, the first respondent shall pay interest at 13% per annum on Rs.15,24,490 from 1.7.2006 (due date) to 12.6.2007 (date of payment of Rs.5 lakhs) and interest at the rate of 13% per annum on Rs.10,24,490 from 13.6.2007 to 12.12.2008.”

Accordingly,, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Forum is upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14.           Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board stands dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. The following directions are issued to the appellant/Chandigarh Housing Board :-

i)              To recover the interest only for one day on the payment of Rs.6,84,750/- ; two days delay in making the payment of Rs.13,29,681/- and one month delay in making the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- & two months delay in making the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- from respondent No.1/complainant and refund the excess amount, if any, charged from respondent No.1/complainant and make payment of the same to respondent No.1/complainant.

ii)             The aforesaid amount be made within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

iii)            The other reliefs i.e. compensation and litigation expenses granted by the Forum is intact.

15.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

28.02.2019.                                    

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

 

                                                           (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb