BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Chandan Lata, aged about 54 years, w/o Sh.Rakesh Mohan, r/o House No.3634, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

The Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Sunil K.Dixit, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Vikas Jain, Counsel for the OP.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied under the Self Financing Housing Scheme, 2008 for employees of Chandigarh Administration for allotment of dwelling house vide Application Form No.52856 and deposited Rs.1,22,000/- as earnest money, which was duly acknowledged by the OP vide receipt dated 26.3.2008. It is the case of the complainant that he received a letter dated 25.8.2011 along with cheque No.693296 dated 16.8.2011 for Rs.1,22,000/-, qua which the reason for the refund of the amount has not been disclosed. The OP utilized the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- for 3 years. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.9.2011 to the OP but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.           OP filed the reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that the complainant applied under the scheme on 26.3.2008. She has specifically declared as under :-

“6. That I further undertake that I shall not claim any interest on the amount of the deposit made in consideration of allotment of dwelling unit under the scheme.”

Thus, the complainant undertook not to claim any interest on the amount. If the complainant remains unsuccessful in draw of lots, then the amount was to be refunded back to her within 30 days of the draw of lots. It has been further pleaded that due to pendency of litigation before the Hon’ble High Court pertaining to the scheme in question, the draw of lots could not be held till 4.11.2010. The complainant remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots and after completion of all the procedural formalities, the OPs refunded the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- on 16.8.2011. The complainant herself gave declaration that she will not claim any interest over the amount deposited for allotment under the scheme and hence she is not entitled for grant of any compensation. The complainant is demanding interest from 26.3.2008 till 25.8.2011 @18% which is totally wrong and illegal. As per terms and conditions of the scheme, the amount of earnest money was to be refunded within 30 days from the date of draw of lots which in the present case was held on 4.11.2010. Moreover, after the draw of lots, some of the applicants have made application before the OP that their amount should not be refunded. The refund of the earnest money to unsuccessful applicants was made as per Clause VIII (v) of the brochure of the scheme and as per this clause, if the refund is not made within 30 days of draw of lots, the interest shall be allowed at the saving bank rate beyond 30 days. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant applied under the Self Financing Housing Scheme, 2008 for employees of Chandigarh Administration for allotment of dwelling house and deposited Rs.1,22,000/- as earnest money with the OP, which was duly acknowledged vide receipt dated 26.3.2008 – Annexure C-1. It was argued that the complainant received a letter dated 25.8.2011 along with cheque No.693296 dated 16.8.2011 for Rs.1,22,000/- - Annexures C-2 & C-3, qua which the reason for the refund of the amount has not been disclosed. It was lastly argued that the OP utilized the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- for 3 years, so she is entitled for interest on it.

6.           The learned Counsel for the OP raised the arguments that the complainant gave a declaration that the complainant applied under the Self Financing Housing Scheme, 2008 on 26.3.2008. She has specifically made a declaration that she shall not claim any interest on the amount of the deposit made in consideration of allotment of dwelling unit under the scheme.

7.           It was further argued that the complainant remained unsuccessful in draw of lots, so, the amount was to be refunded back to her within 30 days of the draw of lots. The OP refunded the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- on 16.8.2011 to the complainant.

8.           The OP has admitted that the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- was to be refunded back to the complainant within 30 days of the draw of lots and in fact, the amount has been refunded on 16.8.2011, whereas, the draw of lots was held on 4.11.2010 as admitted by the OP in the reply filed by it vide para No.2 of the preliminary objections. Thus, it can legitimately be concluded that the OP was under legal obligation to refund the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- to the complainant without interest on or before 4.12.2010, whereas, the OP has refunded the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- to the complainant on 16.8.2011, so made it liable to pay interest on it.

9.           The learned Counsel for the OP further argued that the complainant is demanding interest from 26.3.2008 till 25.8.2011 @18% which is illegal. As per terms and conditions of the scheme, the amount of earnest money was to be refunded within 30 days from the date of draw of lots which in the present case was held on 4.11.2010. It was lastly argued that the refund of the earnest money to unsuccessful applicants was made as per Clause VIII (v) of the brochure of the scheme and as per this clause, if the refund is not made within 30 days of draw of lots, the interest shall be allowed at the saving bank rate beyond 30 days. The said part of the argument has not been countered and challenged by the learned Counsel for the complainant, rather he fairly and squarely conceded that as per Clause VIII (v), referred to above, the complainant is entitled for the interest at the saving bank rate beyond 30 days.

10.         As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- at the saving bank rate from 4.12.2010 till payment. OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment, besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order 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 @ 10% p.a. instead of saving bank rate, on the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- from 4.12.2010 till its payment along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-, besides costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.

12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned.