Haryana

StateCommission

A/1334/2018

HOUSING BOARD HARYANA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

RATTAN LAL - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN GUPTA

08 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                     

First Appeal No :  1334 of 2018

Date of Institution: 12.12.2018

Date of Decision : 08.01.2019

 

 

1.      The Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana, Plot No.C-15, Awas Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

2.      Estate Manager, Housing Board Haryana, Estate Branch, Shop No.9-10, Shopping Complex, Sector 4, Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Rattan Lal, son of Chhitar Mal, aged 80 years, resident of House No.1520/12, Azad Nagar, near Bhagyashali Press, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Present:               Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.(ORAL)

 

          The Chief Administrator and the Estate Manager of Housing Board, Haryana have filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 so as to challenge the order dated 06.11.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Kurukshetra whereby complaint filed by Rattan Lal-respondent under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed by directing the appellants to pay Rs.2,16,611/- to the respondent and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  Directions were also issued to the appellants to comply with the order within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the respondent was held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization.

2.      According to the respondent, he was allotted a flat bearing No.547-SF in Housing Board Colony, Sector 29, Kurukshetra vide letter bearing No.1669 dated 06.05.2013 as he was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 11.03.2011 by the appellants.  He deposited Rs.37,000/- in the year 2010 when he submitted application form, Rs.37,000/- in the year 2011, Rs.95,561/- on 03.06.2013 and Rs.47,050/- on 28.06.2018.  In all, he had deposited Rs.2,16,611/- with the appellants.  As per the terms and conditions of the letter dated 06.05.2013, the appellants were required to deliver the possession of the flat complete in all respect and having development work at the spot within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of said letter but the appellants did not deliver the actual and physical possession of the flat to him inspite of repeated demands and requests.  He also requested the appellants to refund the entire amount alongwith interest but they did not listen to the genuine request made by him.  As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and accordingly prayed for directing the appellants to refund the amount of Rs.2,16,611/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.      Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though the respondent had deposited the requisite amount but due to filing of one petition in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the possession of the flat in question could not be given to the respondent within time but when the appellants proposed to give possession of flat in question to him, the respondent applied for refund of the amount.  Further, though the respondent was not entitled to interest but it being a case of senior citizen, the amount already deposited by the respondent could be refunded to him.

4.      From the above stand taken by the appellants, it is apparent that the appellants have no objection to the refund of the total amount of Rs.2,16,611/- and as the respondent had suffered harassment, mental agony and on account of litigation charges, he was also entitled to collect an amount of Rs.50,000/- as lump sum compensation.

5.      In view of above, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by learned District Forum whereby the complaint filed by the respondent stood allowed.  The appeal is bereft of any merit and is therefore dismissed.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 08.01.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK