Chandigarh Housing Board [CHB], Sector 9, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V E R S U S

Ms. Poonam Singh through her Attorney Bhartendu Sood s/o Late Sh. Bhupinder Nath, House No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh–160047.

              ....Respondent

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

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Vikas Jain, Adv. for the appellant.

                        Sh. Bhartendu Sood, GPA on behalf of the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                        This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.6.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the OP/appellant to calculate the liquidated damages and to refund the same, if received in excess, within thirty days, alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation failing which it was to refund the entire amount with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 3.2.2011 till realization.

2.                             According to the complainant, she was allotted Flat No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh on hire-purchase basis, vide allotment letter dated 07.02.1989. She paid all the installments, well before the expiry period i.e. April, 2001, but, to her utter surprise, when she applied to OP for “No Dues Certificate”, she was told that an amount of Rs.52,172/- was recoverable from her, which included 5 annual and 7 ground rent installments. When protested, OP reduced the aforesaid amount to Rs.41,131/- vide letter dated 15.9.2009, which was further reduced to Rs.36,819/- by the OP vide letter dated 18.5.2010 upon protest of the Complainant. Still discontented, the complainant again protested vide letter dated 25.8.2010 upon which the OP, vide letter dated 13.9.2010, drastically reduced the outstanding amount to Rs.21,019/- and conceded that all monthly and ground rent installments stood cleared and the outstanding amount was towards the penal interest. On receipt of calculation sheet in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.21,019/-, she came to know that OP had charged Rs.42,395/- as penalty on 83 installments which were delayed by more than 3 months @25% of the installment amount by invoking condition no.7 of the allotment letter; whereas, the maximum penalty on each delayed installment could be Rs.140/-. Therefore, she vide letter dated 7.10.2010 requested the OP to calculate the penalty on 83 installments @ Rs.140/- per installment and to refund Rs.9,756/-, after taking into account all payments made by her. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                             In its written reply the OP pleaded that the dwelling unit was allotted to the Complainant, who had accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It was asserted that as per the conditions of allotment, the allottee was required to make the payment in time, so as to evade penal consequences and since the Complainant did not make the payment in time, therefore, she was burdened with interest, strictly in accordance with rules and notification dated 30.8.1996, which provided imposition of 25% penalty in case of default in making payment by the allottee. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made

4.                             Parties led evidence in support of their case.

5.                             After hearing the attorney of the complainant, ld. Counsel for the OP and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP.

7.                             We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, GPA of the respondent/complainant and have perused the record.

8.                             The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the amended notification the appellants are within their rights to impose penalty @25% on the installment amount, which was delayed by more than 3 months.  It is also argued that the account of the complainant/respondent had been maintained properly; she was, in arrears of installments and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum should be set aside. We do not find any merit in the contention of the OP/appellant. The record would show that all is not well in their Accounts Wing where either incompetent persons are posted who are unable to workout the arrears due from the allottee or they intentionally do not workout proper arrears and give inflated figures to injure the financial   interest of the allottees. The higher officers appear to have left the matter to these unscrupulous officials instead of getting the audit done from some independent agencies with respect of each allotte to ascertain as to what amount has been paid and is due from them.

9.                 The OP/appellant furnished the statement in respect of the ground rent showing that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.13478.32 in excess of the ground rent due from him as workedout upto 10.2.2010. If ground rent had been deposited in excess there was no question of issuing a notice to the complainant by the OP/appellant alleging that ground rent was due from him but even in spite of that such notices have been issued by the OP/appellant. The complainant has produced a notice Annexure OP-5 dated 18.5.2010 in para 3 of which it is specifically mentioned that the complainant had not deposited the ground rent for a period from 10.2.2006 and was liable to pay amount of ground rent alongwith applicable rate of penal interest. There is another letter Annexure-2 dated 12.1.2009 in which also the complainant was told that he had not deposited the ground rent./lease money annually and it was due from him for the period from 10.2.2004 to 9.2.2010 which he was liable to pay alongwith penal interest On the other hand they have themselves produced two account statements showing that he had continuously been depositing the said amount, which was apportioned to a previous date. The learned Counsel for the OP/appellant is at a loss to explain as to how the complainant was in arrears of ground rent when he had already deposited Rs.13,478.32 in excess as per their own record. If the officials of the OP/appellant had applied their mind such a notice regarding the arrears in deposit of ground rent would not have been issued to the complainant.

10.             The manner in which the account of complainant and may be of many other allottees and tenants are maintained also leaves much to be desired.  The complainant was informed vide a notice Annexure-2 dated 12.1.2009 that a sum of Rs.52172/- was due from him.  When he questioned the accuracy of the amount, another letter Annexure -3 dated 15.9.2009 was issued reducing the said amount of Rs.41131/-. This is certain that during that period of 8 months complainant had not deposited any such amount. Further the complainant was not satisfied with the calculations and he again sent another letter upon which the amount was brought down to 36819/- as per Annexure -4 dated 18.5.2010. Dissatisfied the complainant again represented and the officials of the OP/appellant were obliged to further bring down the amount to Rs.21019/- vide Annexure-5 dated 13.9.2010. Needless to mention that during this period of about one year and 8 months  no such amount of 30,000/- had been deposited by the complainant which could reduce the figure from 52172/- (as on 12.1.2009)  to Rs.21019/- (as on 13.9.2010). It appears that the allottees are at the mercy of such employees of the OP/appellant who inflate figures according to their whims and can reduce the same if challenged.  Even after the present complaint was filed against the OP plunging it into litigation, it appears no action would have been taken against the said employees who are playing with the figures and are apparently deficient in rendering service, where they cannot even calculate the amount due from the allottees and can give inflated figures to scare the allottees and force them to deposit extra amount with the OP/appellant. The inefficiency of the OP/appellant in calculating the amount due from the allottee is in itself a deficiency in service.

11.               It is not only that, such things happen before the complainant come to Consumer Fora but even after the present case was decided a similar trick has been played by the OP/appellant. As per the accounts statement provided by the OP, referred to above, the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs.13478.32 in excess of amount due from him as ground rent. As regards the EMIs’ the other statement shows that a sum of Rs.34496.65 was due from complainant towards installments, however, during the pendency of appeal the OP/appellant submitted an application dated 30.9.2011 in which the ground rent paid in excess was mentioned to be 6533/- When questioned as to how this amount came down from Rs.13478/- to Rs.6533/- the learned Counsel for the appellant was at a loss to explain. His contention was that the additional amount was adjusted towards the payment of installments. If that be so then why this amount of Rs.6533/- was also not adjusted towards the arrears due from the complainant could not be answered by the learned Counsel.  It is therefore, clear that the OP is not maintaining the accounts of the allottees properly and this by itself constitutes deficiency in service.

12.                         The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any draw back in the order passed by the learned District Forum which in our opinion is perfectly legal and valid.  There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- .

13.                          In order to safeguard the interest of the OP/appellant from its own employees, it is made clear that the OP/appellant would be free to recover amount of compensation and litigation costs etc from its employees due to whose fault proper accounts were not maintained and notices depicting the correct amount due from the complainant was not issued. It would however, be done after giving a show cause notice to such employee(s) of being heard in accordance with Punishment and Appeal Rules applicable to such employees.

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