STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Secretary.

                                                                ---Appellant

                                Vs.

1.     Sh.Narinder Singh son of Sh.Nihal Singh r/o 2630, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                ---Respondent 

2.     Silverton Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., through its President, SCO No.21, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh

3.     The Registrar Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh.

---Proforma Respondents

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

Present:   Sh.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh.S.S.Khetarpal, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

(Service of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was dispensed with vide order dated 17.03.2011 being proforma respondents).

                                        ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        This is an appeal filed by appellant/opposite party  No.1 against the order, dated 29.10.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 420 of 2005 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed appellant/OP No.1 as under:-

“Accordingly, in view of above findings, we allow the complaint and direct OP No.1-Chandigarh Housing Board, (with whom the earnest money remained deposited), to pay complainant interest @10% per annum on the earnest money of Rs.47,230/- w.e.f. 30.6.1999 (the date on which they received a total sum of Rs.1,60,69,128/- including an amount of Rs.47,230/- in respect of complainant from OP No.2 Society) till the date of order. The complainant is also awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental and physical harassment suffered by him due to deficient act/service of OP No.1-C.H.B. alongwith cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2100/-. The order shall be complied with by OP No.1-Chandigarh Housing Board within two months from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they will be liable to pay a penal interest @12% per annum from the date of order till its actual realization”. 

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was enrolled vide enrolment number 589 as Member of Silverton Cooperative House Building Society Limited, having its office at SCO No. 21, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. It was stated that he deposited share money and admission fee of Rs.110/- on 28.5.1990. It was further stated that he deposited a sum of Rs.9200/-with the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh through the Society vide Bank Draft No. 031309, dated 25.1.1993, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1454 of 1992. In all, he deposited Rs.47,230/- with the Society, which passed on the said amount, to the Chandigarh Housing Board. It was further stated that the Chandigarh Housing Board informed the Society that the Chandigarh Administration had fixed the land rate at  Rs.2500/- per sq. yard, for the allotment of land to the Cooperative Housing Societies, on chunk basis, for construction of dwelling units. Therefore, the Chandigarh Housing Board asked the Society to pay further difference of 25%, cost of land @ Rs.2500/- per sq. yard The balance amount, which was required to be paid, by the members of the Society belonging to Category-B was Rs.60,502/-. It was further stated that since the complainant was unable to pay the increased amount, so he made a prayer, for the refund of Rs.48000/- deposited by him, to the Society. However, the Chandigarh Housing Board refunded a sum of Rs.25,930/- only to the Society, in September, 2001, but did not refund the remaining amount with interest @18% per annum which was to the tune of Rs.21,300/-. It was further stated that the Complainant received refund of Rs.25,930/- from the Society, in the month of December, 2001. It was further stated that he repeatedly approached the Society for the refund of amount of interest of Rs.21,300/-, but to no avail. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. 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.

3.             In its written reply, appellant/OP No.1 stated that it had refunded admissible amount of Rs.25,930/- vide letter No.24605, dated 14.12.2000. It was further stated that the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant on that date but the complaint was filed beyond the period of two years, and, as such, the same was time barred. It was further stated that the remaining claim for the refund of interest, charged on delayed payment of installments was not permissible, and was rightly declined. All other allegations of the complainant were denied. It was further stated that, OP No.1, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             In its reply, OP No.2 admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that there was no deficiency in  rendering service, on its part, and the complaint qua it was liable to be dismissed.    

5.             In its separate written reply, OP No.3 took up various preliminary objections viz. the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum; and that fixation of price of land was purely an administrative matter and, as such, the Consumer Forum, had no jurisdiction to decide the same. On merits, the factual aspects of the case, were not disputed. It was stated that, as alleged by the Complainant, the amount had been deposited with the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, who had not been impleaded as a party to the complaint. It was further stated that, OP No.3 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

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, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of instant order. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by appellant/OP No.1.

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

10.           The Counsel for appellant/OP No.1, submitted that the relief, which was not even claimed, by the respondent/complainant, was allowed by the District Forum. It was further submitted that the only relief sought by the respondent/complainant was with regard to the refund of interest paid, on the delayed payment of part earnest money amounting to Rs.21,300/-, along with further interest. He further submitted that the District Forum while allowing refund of the said amount also ordered the payment of interest @ 10% p.a. on the entire earnest money of Rs.47,230/- from the date of its deposit i.e. with effect from 30.06.1999 till the date of passing of the order i.e. 29.10.2007, which was neither sought,  in the relief clause of the  complaint, nor was admissible as the entire amount of the earnest money was immediately refunded, when the Society, on the request of the respondent/complainant, sought its refund. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal is liable to be set aside.

11.           The Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the respondent/complainant was enrolled vide enrolment number 589 as Member of Silverton Cooperative House Building Society Limited. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant deposited Rs.47,230/- with the Society, which further deposited the said amount, with the Chandigarh Housing Board. It was further submitted that the Chandigarh Housing Board informed the Society that the Chandigarh Administration had fixed land rate at Rs.2500/- per sq. yard, for the allotment of land to the Cooperative Housing Societies, on chunk basis, for construction of dwelling units. Therefore, Chandigarh Housing Board asked the Society to pay further difference of 25%, cost of land @ Rs.2500/- per sq. yard and the balance amount which was required to be paid by its members belonging to Category-B was Rs.60,502/-. It was further submitted that since the respondent/complainant  was unable to pay the increased amount, so he made a request for refund of Rs.48000/- deposited by him, to the Society. However, the Chandigarh Housing Board refunded a sum of Rs.25,930/- only to the Society in September, 2001 but did not refund the remaining amount with interest @18% per annum which was to the tune of Rs.21,300/-. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant received refund of Rs.25,930/- from the Society, in the month of December, 2000. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant repeatedly approached the Society for the refund of amount of interest of Rs.21,300/-, but to no avail. It was further submitted that this Commission passed an order dated 02.12.2003 in  Appeal Case No.382 of 2003 titled as Chandigarh Housing Board Versus Avtar Singh and Others,  which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.09.2010 with costs of Rs.25000/- to each of the complainants and, therefore, the order of the District Forum is liable to be upheld.

12.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, we are of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision Petition No.734 of 2004 titled as Chandigarh Housing Board Versus Avtar Singh decided on 12.07.2007 which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2010, passed in Civil Appeal No.8203 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) No.21740 of 2007).  According to the calculation sheet submitted by the Counsel for the complainant/respondent at page 116 of the appeal file, the amount of Rs.21,300/-  along with interest @ 8% p.a. (total amounting to Rs.38,844/-) was paid to the respondent/complainant on 31.01.2011. The amount of Rs.25,930/- was refunded to the complainant in December, 2000. The District Forum, thus, wrongly directed appellant/OP No.1 to pay interest @ 10% on the entire amount of earnest money of Rs.47,230/- from the date of its deposit i.e. w.e.f. 30.06.1999, till the passing of the order i.e. 29.10.2007 instead of on delayed payment of the part amount of the earnest money to the tune of Rs.21,300/-. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the District Forum could not award the relief, which was never sought by the respondent/complainant. Thus, the impugned order of the District Forum, is liable to be modified,  to this extent. 

13.           In view of the above discussion, we partly accept the appeal filed by appellant/OP No.1 with no order as to costs and modify the order of the District Forum as under:-

i)      Appellant/OP No.1 is directed to pay to the respondent/complainant interest @ 10% on the part amount of earnest money to the extent of Rs.21,300/- from 30.06.1999 till the passing of order by the District Forum i.e. 29.10.2007, less the interest amount, if any, already paid to the respondent/complainant.

ii)         Remaining directions of the District Forum shall remain intact.

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

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

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

12^th  December,2011                             [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

cmg

sd/-

                                               [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER