Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/251/2015

Chandigarh Housing Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

G S Ahluwalia, Adv.

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

First Appeal No.	:	251 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	05.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	07.10.2015

 

Chandigarh Housing Board, #8, Jan, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Secretary.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Rajesh Kumar s/o Late Sushil Kumar, presently residing at H.No.LIG 1254, Phase 10, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

....Respondent/Complainant.

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

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by: Sh. G. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2015 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short District Forum only) vide which, it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:-

“12. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint only to this extent that there was deficiency in service on account of delay in acceptance of the application and documents of the complainant by the OP.  Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed.  The OP is directed :-

                                    i.     To make payment of a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment to him and deficiency in service in accepting the application form alongwith documents only on 25.3.2013.

                                  ii.     To also pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.  This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.”

  

2.           The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had earlier filed a CWP No.15589 of 1990 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh which was disposed of vide order dated 19.3.1991, in view of which, he remained in possession of the jhuggi. In the meantime, the Chandigarh Administration framed a Policy regarding rehabilitation of the residents of colony No.5 and with the help of the Opposite Party, constructed flats in Dhanas for allotment to the eligible residents of colony No.5. It was further stated that the Chandigarh Administration thereafter carried out various surveys to find out the residents, who were actually residing in Colony No.5 and the name of the complainant figured in the said survey reports.  It was further stated that thereafter, in January 2013, the Opposite Party wrote letters to the eligible residents of colony No.5 to attend its office on 1.2.2013 alongwith complete record and further to deposit Rs.900/- for the purpose of allotment of flat on license basis under small flat scheme 2006 and one such letter was received by the complainant on 3.2.2013.  It was further stated that accordingly, the complainant approached the Opposite Party alongwith the documents on 4.2.2013, however, one official namely Shiv Kumar refused to accept the same.  It was further stated that the complainant sent the entire record alongwith the bank draft of Rs.900/- in favour of the Opposite Party by registered post on 16.2.2013. It was further stated that thereafter the complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party on 18.3.2013 to find out the status of his file, but, the officials of the Opposite Party misbehaved with him.  It was further stated that the complainant sent two complaints to the Chairman of the Opposite Party on 18.3.2013 and 20.3.2013, but no action was taken.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party returned the papers alongwith draft to the complainant vide letter dated 20.3.2013 on the ground that he failed to attend the office on 1.2.2013. It was further stated that subsequently, when the matter was highlighted in media and newspapers, the officials of the Opposite Party accepted the documents from the complainant alongwith draft on 25.3.2013.  It was further stated that, however, surprisingly, the Opposite Party did not allot any suitable accommodation to the complainant and on 20.11.2013, the Chandigarh Administration forcibly demolished his jhuggi, in which, his household articles were destroyed. It was further stated that later on, the complainant came to know from the official website of the Chandigarh Administration that he had been allotted Flat No.5-B, but he was not given possession despite visiting the office of the Opposite Party and requesting its officials.  It was further stated that finally, the Opposite Party handed over the vacant physical possession of Flat No.5-B at Dhanas to the complainant on 8.1.2015.  It was further stated that the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony, emotional stress and financial loss as he lost his jhuggi and household items etc. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.         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 to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs.

4.           The Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that it had no role to play in the proceedings of demolition of Colony No.5 and the same were exclusively within the competence and power of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party was merely a nodal agency to make allotment of small flats on the recommendations of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh in favour of those applicants, who were declared eligible by him. It was further stated that the Opposite Party requested the complainant vide letter dated 31.1.2013 to attend the camp office in CHB office complex, Sector 9, Chandigarh on 1.2.2013 at 10 a.m. alongwith his spouse alongwith the complete record, Aadhaar card in original, an affidavit as per specimen and to deposit Rs.900/- towards processing fee while submitting the above said documents. However, the complainant and his spouse failed to come present on 1.2.2013 and instead sent the documents through registered post. It was further stated that the complainant was again requested vide letter dated 20.3.2013 to attend the camp office of the Opposite Party on 25.3.2013 alongwith his spouse and the documents received through post were sent back.  It was further stated that the complainant attended the camp office of the Opposite Party on 25.3.2013 and completed the formalities except vote (voter card) for the current year of allotment. It was further stated that accordingly, the complainant’s case was returned to the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh for re-verification of votes, who clarified the position and sent the list of eligible persons, which was received on 19.12.2014. It was further stated that subsequently, the Opposite Party processed the complainant’s case and issued allotment letter dated 2.1.2015 i.e. within 20 days.  It was further stated that it was the function of the Chandigarh administration to get vacated the illegal/unauthorized colony from the Government land. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.         The complainant filed replication, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written versions of the Opposite Party. 

6.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.         Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

9.         We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

10.       The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party submitted that the delay in allotment was solely on the ground of non appearance of the respondent/complainant and his wife before the appellant Camp Office on 1.2.2013, and due to non existence of vote in the year of allotment i.e. 2013. He further submitted that the condition was subsequently relaxed. He further submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party was merely a nodal agency to the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. He further submitted that there was  no delay or deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party and the order of the District Forum being erroneous and illegal, deserves to be set aside.

11.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant/Opposite Party, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.

12.       The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking damages towards loss of jhuggi, loss of household items in the sum of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively besides compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of important necessary documents like school certificates, job related published/unpublished articles, marriage photos, marriage movie etc., Rs.70,000/- towards rent paid by the complainant from the day when jhuggi was demolished, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental harassment, emotional stress and agony caused to him, Rs.50,000/- towards allotment of defective flat, Rs.10,000/- towards loss caused to him due to loss of ration card, Rs.1,00,000/- for indulging into unfair trade practice and Rs.25,000/- and Rs.11,000/- towards cost of litigation. The District Forum, after evaluating the entire evidence, did not allow any relief to the respondent/complainant on account of demolishing of jhuggi and loss of household items etc. etc. The only relief granted to the respondent/complainant was on account of delay in acceptance of the application and documents of the complainant, as indicated in the opening para of this order.

13.       It is evident on record that as per the survey conducted by the Chandigarh Administration, the name of the respondent/complainant figured in the survey report to the effect that he was actually residing in colony no.5. The appellant/Opposite Party has averred in its reply that vide letter dated 31.1.2013, the respondent/complainant was asked to attend the camp office in CHB Office Complex, Sector 9, Chandigarh on 1.2.2013 at 10 a.m. alongwith his spouse alongwith the complete record, Aadhaar card in original, an affidavit as per specimen and to deposit Rs.900/- towards processing fee while submitting the above said documents. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that the aforesaid letter was received by him only on 3.2.2013 and when he approached the appellant/Opposite Party on 4.2.2013, its official, namely, Sh. Shiv Kumar refused to accept the same and he, therefore, sent the entire record alongwith bank draft of Rs.900/- in favour of the appellant/Opposite Party vide registered post on 16.2.2013. The two complaints sent by the respondent/complainant to the Chairman of the appellant/Opposite Party on 18.3.2013 and 20.3.2013 also did not yield any result. There seems to be force in the contention of the respondent/complainant that he did not receive the letter dated 31.1.2013 asking him to attend the office in CHB Office Camp on 1.2.2013 in time and the same was received by him only on 3.2.2013. The appellant/Opposite Party also failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to the effect that the communication was delivered to the respondent/complainant on 31.1.2013. Not only this, in such a situation, when one has to prepare affidavit etc., grant of one day was too inadequate and the action of the appellant/Opposite Party not to entertain the application of the respondent/complainant was clearly unreasonable and amounted to deficiency in rendering service. The District Forum, after evaluating the entire evidence led by the parties, was right in holding that the appellant/Opposite Party was deficient in rendering service as is evident from the contents of Para 7 of the impugned order, which is extracted hereunder:-

“7.        After scrutinizing the entire evidence, we find that there is definite evidence on the file to prove that the officers of the OP accepted the application and the documents from the complainant alongwith deposit of Rs.900/- in cash after a long delay on 25.3.2013.  Admittedly, the OP asked the complainant vide letter No.CHB/AO-I/2013/67/1907 dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure C-7/R-1) to attend its camp office on 1.2.2013 at 10:00 a.m. alongwith his spouse with complete record and Aadhaar card in original alongwith one affidavit and to deposit Rs.900/- towards processing fee for allotment of the flat.  According to the averments of the complainant in the rejoinder, he received the said letter dated 31.1.2013 on 3.2.2013. The OP has not produced any documentary evidence to this effect that the said letter was received by the complainant either on 31.1.2013 or in the morning on 1.2.2013.  Obviously, in the absence of any prior notice, the complainant could not appear before the officials of the OP on 1.2.2013.  The allegations of the complainant, coupled with the affidavit, show that he approached the OP office alongwith his documentary evidence  including the attested affidavit dated 4.2.2013, but, one official namely Sh. Shiv Kumar refused to accept the documents of the complainant.  According to the complainant, he visited the office thrice and each time the file was not accepted by the officials of the Chandigarh Housing Board (OP). The OP has not produced any affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar to this effect that the complainant did not visit the office of the OP thrice after 3.2.2013 and his allegation that his file was not accepted was not correct. Consequently we feel that since his application was not accepted by the officials of the OP, there was no option before the complainant but to send the documents alongwith fee through registered post on 16.2.2013. Significantly, the complainant has also alleged that he visited the office of the OP on 18.3.2013 in order to find out the status of his file, but, the officials of the OP misbehaved with him and refused to divulge the status of his file. The concerned official Sh. Shiv Kumar and Accounts Officer, Sh. Vikram Singh also commented and abused against the order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.  Again, no such affidavits of S/Sh. Shiv Kumar and Vikram Singh have been produced which could show that they did not refuse to divulge the status of the file of the complainant. Pertinently, later on, after keeping the documents and the fee of the complainant for one month with it, the original papers alongwith the pay order of Rs.900/- were returned to him by the OP vide letter dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure C-9/Annexure R-2) with a direction to attend the office and to see the concerned team members of the camp for further advice latest by 25.3.2013.  It was on that date only that the OP found that the complainant had completed the formalities except the voter card for the current year of allotment i.e. 2013.  The material on record shows that the complainant made efforts for submission of his application form w.e.f. 4.2.2013, but, the officials of the OP did not take any action. Then the complainant was compelled to send the same alongwith the bank draft of Rs.900/- to the OP through registered post on 16.2.2013.  However, after keeping the documents and the fee of Rs.900/- for more than one month, the same were returned to the complainant with the remark that he had not attended the camp on 31.1.2013 alongwith his spouse and relevant record.  As already observed, the complainant was not at all at fault because he could not attend the office of the OP on 1.2.2013 at 10:00 a.m. because he had received the letter dated 31.1.2013 only on 3.2.2013.  Hence, the delay in acceptance of the application form alongwith the documents submitted by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.”

 

14.       We do not find any reason to disagree with the aforesaid finding of the District Forum. The appellant/Opposite Party has unnecessarily tried to shift the onus of its deficiency on the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. The District Forum was, thus, right in partly allowing the complaint against the appellant/Opposite Party by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant and deficiency in service besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

15.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party.

16.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

17.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the District Forum is upheld.

18.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Pronounced.

October 07, 2015.

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 [PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad