Chandigarh Housing Board, through its Accounts Officer-III, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9D, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Umed Singh s/o Sh.Krishan Singh r/o House No.422-A, Police Line, Sector 26, UT, Chandigarh.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP is directed:-

i)      To pay interest at the savings bank rate on the amount of Rs.70,000/- from 4.12.2010 (i.e. one month after the draw of lots, wherein the complainant was not successful) to January, 2013 (the date on which the cheque from the OP was received).

ii)     To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.

iii)   To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs. 

The order passed shall 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 on the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant @9% p.a. from 4.12.2010 till realization, besides making payment of  compensation and costs of litigation, referred to above.”

2.             

3.             

4.             served a notice, upon the complainant, to repay the earnest money loan, to the tune of Rs.70,000/-, obtained by him, with interest. It was further stated that, after that the complainant deposited the principal amount of Rs.70,000/-, alongwith interest. Thereafter, the said Bank issued No Dues Certificate. It was further stated that, thereafter, a letter was received by the complainant, from the said Bank, informing him that it had received refund of the earnest money loan, amounting to Rs.70,000/-, from the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh (Opposite Party). It was further stated that, in pursuance of the above said letter, the Bank handed over the cheque bearing no.30964965, in the sum of Rs.70,000/-, to the complainant, on 19.01.2013, which was encashed by him.

5.           

6.                The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that it had floated a Housing Scheme under the name and style of Chandigarh Administration, on 14.01.2008. It was stated that the said Scheme was marred by numerous litigations, on various issues, raised by the applicants, as well as general public, from time to time. It was further stated that, on 04.11.2010, the draw of lots was conducted, in respect of the aforesaid Scheme, at the Auditorium Hall of GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, in the presence of the Property Allotment Committee, Chandigarh, and the general public. It was further stated that a total number of 3930 applicants emerged successful, in the said draw of lots. Those applicants were registered for the allotment of flats, under the said scheme, for various types of flats, which were provided to them. It was further stated that Clause (IV), under para VIII of the brochure of the said Scheme, provided for the preparation of waiting list, to the extent of 20% of the total number of units, available under each category, subject to minimum one for a period of one year, from the date of draw of lots. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, accordingly, prepared the waiting list, to the extent of 20% of the total available flats, under each category, as per the terms and conditions, contained in the brochure of the said Scheme. It was further stated that Clause VIII (v) of the said brochure, provided that the initial deposit, would be refunded, within 30 days, from the date of draw of lots, to the applicants, who remained unsuccessful, in the same (draw of lots). It was further stated that this Clause further provided that, in case, the refund was not made within the stipulated time, interest on the earnest money, deposited by the applicant(s) was payable at the Savings Bank Rate, beyond the period of 30 days. It was further stated that the Opposite Party after preparing the list of unsuccessful applicants, and the waiting list, started processing the case of refund. In the mean-while, a number of applicants, including the complainant, suo-motto, approached the Opposite Party, and gave undertakings that their earnest money be retained, till a final decision was taken by the Chandigarh Administration. It was further stated that the complainant also stated, in the undertaking

7.              

8.           

9.            

10.        

11.         

12.        a Housing Scheme under the name and style of Chandigarh Administration, on 14.01.2008. He further submitted that the draw of lots, with regard to the allotment of flats, under the said Scheme, was held on 04.11.2010. He further submitted that the complainant was unsuccessful, in the said draw of lots. He further submitted that when the case of the complainant was processed for the refund of earnest money, deposited by him, he submitted an undertaking to the effect that the same (earnest money), be retained, as the matter with regard to the allotment of flats, to the unsuccessful applicants was under consideration of the Chandigarh Administration. He further stated, in the said undertaking, that he would not claim any interest, on the earnest money. He further submitted that the earnest money, to the tune of Rs.70,000/- was ultimately refunded, after the Chandigarh Administration, took the decision that it was not possible to allot flats to unsuccessful applicants. He further submitted that, no doubt, later on, the Opposite Party had principally decided that interest, at the Saving Bank Rate be given to the unsuccessful applicants, whose earnest money had already been refunded. He further submitted that there was no question of mental agony and physical harassment, having been caused to the complainant, by the Opposite Party, and, as such, the District Forum was wrong, in awarding compensation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to him. He further submitted that even the District Forum was also wrong, in granting excessive litigation cost, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

13.        , by this Commission, interest at the Saving Bank Rate, on the amount of earnest money, compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, were granted, in favour of the respondent/complainant therein. He further submitted that the facts of the

14.            Admittedly, the complainant applied for a one Bed Room Flat, The District Forum, was, thus, right, in awarding interest at the Saving Bank Rate, on the amount of Rs.70,000/-, from 04.12.2010 (i.e. one month after the draw of lots, wherein the complainant was unsuccessful), to January 2013, when the cheque, in the amount of Rs.70,000/-, from the Opposite Party, was received. By not paying interest at the Saving Bank Rate, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.

15.        

16.        

17.        , a complaint decided on 31.01.2013, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, it awarded compensation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, at the hands of the Chandigarh Housing Board, whereas, this Commission, reduced the same, to Rs.20,000/-, in First Appeal No.158 of 2013, referred to above. Inundertaking had not been given by the complainant, to the effect that the amount of earnest money be retained, by the Chandigarh Housing Board, and she will not claim any interest thereon. It may be stated here, that every case depends on its own facts and circumstances. Even, one additional fact, in a case, may be sufficient to tilt the decision. Since, in the instant case, as stated above, an undertaking was given by the complainant, that the earnest money deposited by him, be retained by the Chandigarh Housing Board, and he will not claim interest thereon, the facts thereof are distinguishable, from the facts of. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, from the decision rendered in. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent/ complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

18.           

19.        

20.        

                      The appellant/opposite party shall pay to the complainant, interest at the Saving Bank Rate, prevailing on the date of refund, on the amount of Rs.70,000/-, from 04.12.2010 

                     The direction of the District Forum, awarding compensation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant/ respondent, is set aside.

                   The appellant/opposite party shall pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.7,000/-, instead of Rs.10,000/-, awarded by the District Forum

                    This order shall be complied with, by the appellant/opposite party, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @9% P.A., on the amount of Rs.70,000/-, from 04.12.2010, till realization, to the complainant/ respondent, besides cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.7,000/-.