Malkiat Singh Rahi s/o Sh.Milkhi Ram earlier r/o House No.2040, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh and presently House No.767-A, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh

                                                        .…Appellant

                           Vs.

1.       Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7 Kapoorthala  Complex, Lucknow through its Managing Director.

2.       Regional Office, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Branch Sector 22, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3.       The Branch Head, Sahara India, Ropar, Near Head Post Office, Ropar.

4.       Lachhman Singh, c/o the Branch Head, Sahara India, Ropar Near Head, Post Office, Ropar.

                                                                             …. Respondent (s)

BEFORE:      JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Present:       None for appellant.

                   Sh. D.K. Singal, Adv. for respondents No. 1 to 3.

                   Respondent No.4 already ex-parte.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is complainant’s appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide order dated 8.9.2008 vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant and directed the OPs to pay another sum of Rs.One Lakh as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental and physical harassment for rendering deficient services.  The OPs were further directed to pay Rs.2621/- deducted by them as TDS on the amount of Rs.1,22,289/- refunded to the complainant on 25.3.2008.  Besides this, litigation cost of Rs.2100/- was also directed to be paid by the OPs.  The order was to be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the OPs were liable to pay penal interest on amount of compensation of Rs.One Lakh at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of refund i.e. 16th April, 2005 till the date of realization. 

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant in pursuance of the scheme A i.e. Swarn/Rajat Yojana i.e. Sahara City Home Township in Chandigarh floated by the OPs, deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with them vide receipt Annexure C-1 for allotment of an independent house having a plot area of 8844 sq. ft/171 sq. mtr equivalent to 567.12 sq. ft., the price whereof was Rs.45.21 lacs.  It was stated that according to the said scheme, the complainant was to be given top priority in the allotment of housing unit on the basis of the first come first serve basis. On personal visits to the office of the OPs, the complainant was told that he would be informed accordingly as and when the allotment procedure would start. It was further stated that the OPs informed him that the allotment of the first phase was completed, but his name was not considered by mistake. It was further stated that the grievance expressed by the complainant, regarding the allotment of the dwelling unit, with the OPs failed to evoke any effective response. Ultimately, the complainant requested the OPs vide his representation dated 22.03.2006, to refund the deposited amount, alongwith interest, and they assured him that the same would be returned after three years time i.e. after 13.09.2007 but to no effect.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.                     Reply was filed by OPs No. 1 to 3, wherein, they pleaded that on account of existence of arbitration clause, the Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was stated that the OPs had returned Rs.1,22,289/- (Rs.1 lakh originally deposited and Rs.22,829/- interest upto 22.02.2008) after deducting Rs.2621/- as TDS to the complainant, which amount was received by him on 25.03.2008. It was further stated that the scheme was tentative and was subject to various other visible points and  terms and conditions contained in the brochure and passbook-cum-certificate. It was denied that the complainant had made any representation dated 22.03.2006, and that there was any mistake by the OPs for not considering his name for allotment in first phase.  Rest of the allegations were denied.

4.                     Despite service nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.4 to contest the case and hence, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.04.2008.

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

6.                The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

7.         Aggrieved against the inadequacy of compensation awarded, by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the instant appeal for enhancement thereof. 

8.       None appeared, on behalf of the appellant on 19.9.2011 when the appeal was fixed for arguments. Not only this, even none appeared on behalf of the appellant on 14.9.2011.

9.       We have heard Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3, and have perused the evidence and record, the impugned order and the written submissions of the appellant already placed on the file of the District Forum.

10.       In the grounds of appeal, it was indicated that the District Forum awarded the appellant/complainant a sum of Rs 1.00 lacs as compensation, whereas, in a similar complaint case No. 288 of 2008 tiled as Ranvir Singh Vs. Sahara India Pariwar & another, decided on 8.9.2008, compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded. It was further stated in the grounds of appeal, that in complaint No.539 of 2006 titled as R.K. Sharma Vs. Sahara India Pariwar & another decided on 19.9.2007, compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs was awarded, which was upheld by this Commission vide order dated 14.7.2008 in appeal no. 670 of 2007 titled as Sahara India Pariwar & another Vs. R.K. Sharma. It was, therefore, stated in memorandum of appeal, that the compensation of Rs.1.00 lacs awarded to the complainant be enhanced to Rs.5.00 lacs. It was prayed that the costs of litigation from Rs.2100/- to Rs.10,000/- be also enhanced in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.   

11.                   It is evident from R-4, withdrawal slip that the OPs returned Rs.1,22,829/- (Rs.1 lakh originally deposited and Rs.22,829/- as interest upto 22.2.2008), after deducting Rs.2621/- as TDS to the complainant, which amount was received by him, on 25.03.2008. The scheme was tentative and was subject to various other visible points and the terms and conditions contained in the brochure and passbook-cum-certificate.

12.                   From the perusal of record, it is evident, that in the present case as also in the case of R.K.Sharma Vs. Sahara India Pariwar & Anr., no doubt the amount deposited by the parties, is the same, yet in the case of R.K.Sharma Vs. Sahara India Pariwar & Anr ,  due to the mistake of the OPs the name of the complainant could not be considered for the allotment of flat and that was why, he missed the chance for the allotment of flat. The OPs in that case handed over/allotted some flats to other applicants by altogether ignoring the claim of the complainant. In that case inspite of many assurances given by the OPs, neither any flat was allotted to him nor his money was refunded, within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the brochure and even upto the passing of the award by the District Forum.  The conduct of the OPs, in that case was not at all bonafide. On account of these reasons the District Forum in the complaint filed by the complainant directed the OPs to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case, the complainant received the amount of deposit alongwith interest, immediately after filing the complaint. Anoop Srivastava, Branch Head of the OPs in his affidavit, stated that there was no mistake in not considering the name of the complainant for allotment.  No doubt, no document was produced by the OPs, that the allotment in the first phase was made on the basis of first come first served. The facts of this case and that of R.K.Sharma Vs. Sahara India Pariwar & Anr  are, thus, not exactly the same.  It was, thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, that the District Forum granted compensation in the sum of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant for physical harassment and mental agony.  Even against the impugned order an appeal was filed by Sahara India, which was dismissed by this Commission. Feeling aggrieved, Sahara India filed revision petition No.74/2009, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 2.2.2009. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing and Hospital and Anr. IV (2010) CPJ 199 (NC), the principle of law laid down was to the effect that the compensation should be commensurate with the loss and the injury suffered by the complainant.  The compensation is required to be fair and just and not unreasonable and arbitrary.  The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers at the cost of service providers by awarding unreasonable and highly excessive compensation.  The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.  The District Forum after taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, was wholly right, in granting compensation in the sum of Rs.1.00 lac for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant. The compensation of Rs.1.00 lac awarded, in this case, is fair and just. No ground for enhancement thereof is made out. 

13.     In complaint case no. 288 of 2008 titled as Ranvir Singh Vs. Sahara India Pariwar & another   decided on 8.9.2008, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the District Forum while taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances prevailing therein awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment. The facts of Ranvir Singh’s case (supra) are also not exactly similar to the facts of this case.  No help, therefrom, can be sought by the appellant.

14.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we don’t find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant. Consequently,  we dismiss the appeal, as devoid of merit, and uphold the order passed by the learned District Forum.

15.     The parties are left to bear their own costs.

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

Pronounced.                                                                         

 3^rd  October, 2011.                                                              sd/-                                                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                          PRESIDENT             

                                                                                                          Sd/-                                                                                [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                                          MEMBER