Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/400/2017

Praveen Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

J.K. Kamboj

05 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/400/2017
Date of Institution	:	15/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2018

 

Praveen Singhal r/o H.No.2329A, Block 30, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2.     Account Officer-I, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                              

For complainant	:	Sh. Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Harinder Kumar Aurora, Advocate

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations are, complainant is a successful allottee of dwelling unit No.2329A of one bed room flat in Block No.30, Sector 63, Chandigarh.  The OPs issued Acceptance cum demand letter (ACDL) dated 12.12.2011 in respect of Regn.No.GHS63-1BR-GEN-274.  As per letter dated 12.12.2011, OPs prescribed the mode of payment. It was specifically mentioned that as per clause 3 (ii), in case full payment of the dwelling unit was made within 30 days from the date of issue of ACDL, no interest would be charged. Further. clause 3 (iii) provided the rate of interest of the housing scheme was 12% per annum. The complainant in pursuance of the letter dated 12.12.2011 made full and final payment through demand draft dated 9.1.2012 which was credited in the account of the OPs on 11.1.2013. Further case is, complainant in response to the letter dated 19.7.2013 deposited a sum of Rs.1,57,416/- in the account of the OPs which was demanded illegally since the full and final had already been made by him within 30 days as per the ACDL.  Per letter dated 11.9.2014, it was informed that the matter regarding delay in making lump sum payment beyond 30 days has been reconsidered and it was decided that in case the lump sum payment is received beyond 30 days from the issue of ACDL, interest as given under clause 5 of the ACDL be made applicable @ 18% p.a. for one month.  The account of the complainant was re-examined and found that a sum of Rs.23,163/- was outstanding as on date.  It is further the case, OPs vide letter dated 16.2.2015 sent a cheque of Rs.1,34,253/- after so many visits and correspondence and retained the amount of Rs.23,163/-.  On these allegations the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs, interest on the amount of Rs.1,34,253/ -, refund of the amount of Rs.23,163/- alongwith interest and litigation costs.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed reply and, inter alia, raised the preliminary objection of no jurisdiction.  Issuance of letter and condition of making full payment within 30 days from the issue of ACDL is admitted.  It is also the case, there was no deficiency in service.  Further, it is denied there was negligence on the part of OPs.  It is admitted, a sum of Rs.1,57,416/- was deposited by the complainant which was lying in miscellaneous account and due to rush it could not be reconciled at that time.  Once this fact came into the notice of the Board/OPs, it immediately got the amount verified from the bank and after that refunded Rs.1,34,253/- through cheque dated 19.1.2015 vide its letter dated 16.2.2015.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the consumer complaint.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments of the OPs.  Our conclusions, derived from the record, are as under :-
6.         The crux of the matter is, the amount of Rs.1,57,416/- was illegally demanded  and retained by the OPs without any justification.  It is also the admitted case, out of this amount, Rs.1,34,253/- was refunded to the complainant by the OPs vide letter dated 16.2.2015 (Annexure C-8) without interest and an amount of Rs.23,163/- was illegally retained. To this effect we will make reference to the contents of the reply of OPs.  Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the joint reply are reproduced as under :-

                “8 & 9.       That the allegations made by the complainant that the Board was negligent is totally baseless as the amount of Rs.1,57,416/- was deposited by him was lying in the miscellaneous account and, due to rush, this could not be reconciled at that time. Once this fact came into the notice of the Board, it immediately got the amount verified from the bank and, after that, refunded the amount of Rs.1,34,253/- through cheque No.266340 dated 19.1.2015 of SBI vide letter No.15901 dated 16.2.2015.”

7.         A perusal of the reply to these paragraphs shows that a sum of Rs.1,57,416/- was deposited and the justification given was that it was lying in the miscellaneous account and due to rush could not be reconciled at that time.  However, when it came to notice, it was verified and the amount of Rs.1,34,253/- was refunded to the complainant through cheque No.266340 dated 19.1.2015 vide letter dated 16.2.2015. The OPs have owned up the responsibility that the amount was lying in the miscellaneous account due to rush.  This itself shows, OPs were deficient in service and negligent. If there was bonafide mistake or say a human error it could have been corrected once the matter was raised orally or in writing by the complainant, but, it was not done.  Unnecessarily this amount was retained by the OPs.  No explanation offered why Rs.1,34,253/- only was refunded and not the remaining amount of Rs.23,163/-. No such justification has been given by the OPs in their pleadings. 
8.         The complainant relied upon Annexure OP-1 i.e. copy of the acceptance cum demand letter dated 12.12.2011, Annexure OP-2 i.e. brochure of the scheme and other material documents. There is another registered letter dated 19.7.2013 (Annexure C-3)  vide which it was highlighted that the amount of flat was not deposited within 30 days from the date of ACDL dated 12.12.2011.  The case is that it was credited on 11.1.2012.  The date of issuance of the letter is different and date of despatch is different and this period, in common sense, would be taken from the date of receipt of the letter and not from the date of issuance or say its despatch. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay to the complainant interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,34,253/- w.e.f. 6.8.2013 (date of deposit) till 16.2.2015 (when it was refunded).
2. To refund the amount of Rs.23,163/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 6.8.2013 (the date of deposit) till realization.
3. To pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
4. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) to  (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iv) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President