Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/221/2017

Tarlochan Kaur Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	221 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	08.03.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	28.06.2017

 

 

 

 

Tarlochan Kaur Anand w/o Nareshjit Singh Anand, # 3200, G.F. Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.   

             …..Complainant

Versus

The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009

                          ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                               

Argued by: Sh.N.S.Anand, Authorised Agent for the     

 complainant

 Sh.Rajat Nakra, Adv. for Opposite Party.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant applied for transfer of Dwelling Unit No.3200, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh in his name on 21.4.2016 and paid processing fee of Rs.3000/- (Annexure C-1 to C-3). However, the transfer was not made till 25.10.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant applied for transfer of said unit with Opposite Party under its Tatkal Scheme by paying an amount of Rs.40,000/- as under Tatkal Scheme the transfer should have been made within 5 days of making application.  It is averred that as per the letter of Opposite Party dated 7.11.2016 (Annexure C-7), the complainant deposited Rs.59905/- for the lapse period and Rs.11,628/- as ground rent on the same day i.e. 7.11.2016.  It is also averred that even after deposit of the requisite amount and applying under Tatkal Scheme, the Opposite Party failed to transfer the unit in the name of the complainant promptly and made him to visit the Opposite Party time & again.  Ultimately, the transfer was done on 23.11.2016 i.e. more than 30 days against the prescribed period of 5 days.  Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party for refund of Tatkal fee as it failed to provide the service in the prescribed period of 5 days as stipulated in the said scheme, but the same was rejected.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating that the complainant submitted an application for transfer of Dwelling Unit No.3200, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh on the basis of Regd. Will under Tatkal Scheme on 25.10.2016 and on 26.10.2016, the complainant was telephonically requested to clarify the position of the court case in Civil Suit of 2013 titled as Nareshjit Singh Anand & Anr. Vs. Chander Grover & Anr. or provide the copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble District Court in the said civil suit, but when complainant did not submit the judgment, then a letter dated 2.11.2016 was issued in this regard, whereupon the complainant submitted the copy of judgment on 3.11.2016. Thereafter the complainant was asked to deposit the pending dues and after deposit of same, the dwelling unit was inspected and after finding it to be in order, the case was transferred to the Chairman for its approval and then the unit was transferred in the name of complainant on 23.11.2016. It is pleaded that the time prescribed under Tatkal Scheme is five working days for those applications in which the documents are complete in all respects as per the check list given in the Citizen’s Charter.  It is also pleaded that the complainant knowingly did not disclose the fact that in the year 2013, her husband Sh.Nareshjit Singh & Madho Narain Singh filed a civil suit bearing No.11973 of 2013 for recovery of damages and mandatory injunction for stopping of leakage at DU No.3200/1, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh against Smt.Chander Grover and answering Opposite Party, which was partly decreed. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       It is admitted between the parties that the complainant initially applied for the transfer of her Dwelling Unit No.3200, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh in her name on 21.4.2016 by paying processing fee of Rs.3000/- along with publication fee of Rs.10,000/-.  Further, not disputed that the complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2016, when the Opposite Party failed to finalize her pending case for transfer, opted to get the work done under Tatkal Scheme floated by the Opposite Party.  It is further proven fact that the complainant deposited the requisite fee of Rs.40,000/- as is mandated under the category mentioned in ‘Tatkal Scheme’ for transfer of the dwelling unit. 

 

6]       It is the grouse of the complainant that despite of completing all the formalities and paying the requisite fee, the Opposite Party has failed to transfer the unit in her name within the stipulated period of 5 working days, as prescribed under the Tatkal Scheme and transferred the Dwelling Unit only on 23.11.2016. 

 

7]       During the course of arguments, the counsel for the Opposite Party argued that the Opposite Party has not committed any delay/deficiency in service in transferring the said unit in the name of the complainant.  He submitted further that it is a requirement under the Tatkal Service, provided vide Order No.188, dated 4.9.2015 that the applicant applying under the Tatkal Service has to complete the documents in all respect as per the check list given in the Citizen Charter of Chandigarh Housing Board.  Claimed further that the complainant is guilty of suppressing factum about the pending case before the District Court, Chandigarh i.e. Civil suit bearing No.11973 of 2013 titled as Nareshjit Singh Anand & Anr. Vs. Chander Grover & Anr.,  for recovery of damages and mandatory injunction for stopping of leakage at DU No.3200/1, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh against Smt.Chander Grover and answering Opposite Party. It is claimed further that the complainant was issued letter dated 2.11.2016 to clarify the position of said court case and thereafter on 3.11.2016, the complainant clarified the matter.  Claimed further that on 7.11.2016, the complainant was asked to clear the pending dues and transfer fee.  It is claimed that on 23.11.2016, the said dwelling unit, after following the due procedure, was transferred in the name of the complainant. 

 

8]       The submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party clearly establishes a case of deficiency in service on its part for the reasons recorded hereunder.

 

9]       As per the Office Order No.188, dated 4.9.2015 issued by the Opposite Party, the only requisition for getting the dwelling/commercial units transferred under Tatkal Service, is by way of submitting the documents, as per the list given in the Citizen Charter of Chandigarh Housing Board, along with deposition of requisite fee, as per the category mentioned therein. There is no iota of evidence pointing that the application of the complainant for transfer of dwelling unit in question under Tatkal scheme was not entertained by the Opposite Party for want of any document.  The OP's Order dated 14.6.2016 (Ann.OP/1) i.e. a clarification Order for the time prescribed for transfer of residential units & commercial units under Tatkal Service provides that five working days period under Tatkal Service includes the day of application for transfer of the dwelling unit, meaning thereby that the case of the complainant was bound to be considered within the stipulated period of 5 days, whereas the Opposite Party after exhausting all five days, issued letter dated 2.11.2016 to the complainant to clarify about the pending Civil suit bearing No.11973 of 2013 titled as Nareshjit Singh Anand & Anr. Vs. Chander Grover & Anr.  It is aptly to mention here that during the course of arguments, it is clarified by the complainant that the clarification sought by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 2.11.2016 was not required as the Opposite Party was also one of the party in the said Civil suit bearing No.11973 of 2013 titled as Nareshjit Singh Anand & Anr. Vs. Chander Grover & Anr. and was well aware of the order.  This knowledge on the part of the Opposite Party is also reflected in the reply of the Opposite Party wherein in Para No.6 (Preliminary Submissions), it has been mentioned that

“That the said civil suit was partly decreed in favour of Complainant’s husband and Partly in favour of Smt.Chander Grover.  The Hon’ble Court vide its order directed the parties to execute the necessary repairs in the dwelling units by 31.3.2016.  Answering Opposite Party was directed to carry out the necessary repairs if parties to the suit fail to carry out necessary repairs.”  

 

        The above admission on the part of the Opposite Party shows that there was no requirement for seeking any clarification from the complainant. 

 

10]      This shows that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, who despite the payment of transfer fee of Rs.40,000/- under Tatkal Service, failed to act within the stipulated period of 5 days.  It is further observed that the Opposite Party continued to act in a deficient manner and despite the receipt of pending dues as well as transfer fee on 7.11.2016, took another 15 days to transfer the unit in question in the name of complainant.  There is no cogent explanation by the Opposite Party for such delay.  The request for refund has also been wrongly rejected by the Opposite Party.

 

11]      In our opinion the sole purpose of applying under the Tatkal Service got defeated when the Opposite Party failed to act swiftly, as required under the scheme.  We are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not only entitled for the compensation for such delay and harassment caused by the Opposite Party, but also entitled for refund of fee of Rs.40,000/- deposited under Tatkal Service. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

[a] To refund the fee amount of Rs.40,000/- paid under the Tatkal Service;

 

[b] To pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation cost, for causing mental agony, harassment on account of deficiency and trusting unwanted litigation.   

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall also be liable to pay an interest @12% per annum on the amounts as mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28^th June, 2017                                                                         Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER