STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                    UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH

Chandigarh Housing Board, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9/D, Chandigarh.

Versus

Rupinder Kaur, Junior Scale Stenographer, GMCH-32, Chandigarh, presently residing at H.No.113, Tribune Colony, Gobind Vihar, Kansal, District Mohali, Punjab – 160103 by/through Mohan S. Thakur, Advocate.

---Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:

Argued by:Sh.Karan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Mohan Singh Thakur, Advocate for the 

respondent.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

“9   

i)     To pay interest at the savings bank rate on the amount of Rs.70,000/- from 4.12.2010 (i.e. one month after the draw of lots, wherein the complainant was not successful) to 19.1.2013 (the date when the actual payment was received by her).

ii)   To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.

iii)  To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.  

10.  This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall be liable to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant @9% p.a. from 4.12.2010 till realization, besides making payment of  compensation and costs of litigation, referred to above.”

2.              In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant applied for a one bedroom flat launched by the Opposite Party under a Self Financing Housing Scheme 2008 for

3.              Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that the complainant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots held on 4.11.2010 in the Self Financing Housing Scheme – 2008 for the employees of Chandigarh Administration. It was further stated that as per Clause VIII(v) of the brochure of the scheme, the earnest money deposited by the complainant and such applicants was to be refunded within a period of 30 days from the date of draw of lots and in case the refund was not made within the stipulated time the interest was payable at the savings bank rate beyond the period of 30 days. It was further stated that the complainant and similar unsuccessful applicants themselves approached the Opposite Party giving unconditional voluntary undertaking for retaining their earnest money. It was further stated that the earnest money of the applicants, who gave the undertaking , was retained and for the rest of the unsuccessful applicants, the same was refunded.  It was further stated that the status of the said scheme was brought to the notice of the Board in the meeting held on 24.2.2012 (Annexure R-1), wherein, it was resolved that the Opposite Party should not retain the earnest money of unsuccessful candidates even though they had given an undertaking. 

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

5.              After hearing the Counsel for the contesting 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.

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

7.              We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.              The Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party submitted that the respondent/complainant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots and the earnest money was refundable to her within 30 days from the date of draw of lots. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant submitted an undertaking dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure C-2) of her own volition that the earnest money deposited by her should not be refunded till the decision of issue taken up by U.T & MC Employees Sangarsh Committee, to allot flats, to left out employees. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant also undertook not to claim any interest. It was also submitted by the Counsel that the appellant/Opposite Party has already principally decided to allow interest at Savings Bank rate in such cases.9.              The Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the Opposite Party was deficient in rendering service, and the District Forum had rightly partly allowed the complaint.

10.            Admittedly, the respondent/complainant deposited earnest money of Rs.70,000/- while applying for One Bed Room Flat under Self Financing Housing Scheme-2008 for the employees of Chandigarh Administration vide Application No.10547 (Annexure C-1). The draw of lots was held on 04.11.2010 and the respondent/complainant remained unsuccessful. She voluntarily gave an undertaking dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure C-2), which is extracted hereunder:-

 “My application No. is 10547. As I was unsuccessful in the draw, and came to know that your office (Chandigarh Housing Board) is in the process of refunding the earnest money to the unsuccessful applicants. As, your good-self is aware that UT & MC Employees Sangarsh Committee has taken up the case with the Chandigarh Administration to allot flats to all left out employees in the above said scheme. So I hereby request your good-self that earnest money deposited by me, should not be refunded till the decision of the case. I will not claim any interest.”

11.            Thus, it was on account of undertaking aforesaid given by the respondent/complainant, of her own volition that the Appellant/Opposite Party retained the earnest money of the respondent/complainant. The draw of lots was held on 4.11.2010 and as per Clause VIII(v) of the brochure of Self Financing Housing Scheme 2008 for employees of Chandigarh Administration, earnest money was required to be refunded within 30 days, from the date of draw of lots and for any delay beyond the period of 30 days, interest at the Savings Bank rate was payable. No doubt, the respondent/complainant undertook not to claim interest but such an undertaking could not override the aforesaid provision of brochure, more so, when the amount remained with the appellant/Opposite Party till its refund on 19.01.2013. As submitted by the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, the Chandigarh Housing Board has also decided, in principle, to allow Savings Bank interest for retention of earnest money beyond 30 days from the date of draw of lots. Since the earnest money was refunded to the respondent/complainant without Savings Bank interest after long delay, the appellant/Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service. 

12.            However, since the respondent/complainant had herself requested the appellant/Opposite Party not to refund the earnest money, until and unless the issue with regard to the allotment of flats to the left out employees was decided, the question of sufferance of mental agony and physical harassment by her  

13.            The facts of the case titled asAbha Dobriyal Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board,Consumer Complaint No.319 of 2012 decided on 31.01.2013 (modified by this Commission in First Appeal No.158 of 2013 vide order dated 06.06.2013), relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent/complainantare distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In that case, there was no such undertaking given by the applicant/complainant, asking the Chandigarh Housing Board not to refund the earnest money or of not claiming any interest on that amount.

14.            The litigation cost to the extent of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, is also somewhat on the higher side, and needs to be reduced.

15.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

16.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party is partly acceptedwith no order as to costs, and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is modified, to the extent, indicated “(a)

(b)  

(c)  

(d)  This order be complied with, by the appellant/Opposite Party, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall pay interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs.70,.000/-, as per direction 9(i) of the impugned order, from 4.12.2010 till realization, to the respondent/complainant, besides payment of cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.

(e)  

15.        

16.        

Pronounced.

17^th

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

AD

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.474 of 2013)

Argued by:Sh.Karan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Mohan Singh Thakur, Advocate for the 

respondent.

Dated the 17^th

ORDER

Ad