CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD vs Daljit Singh

THIS appeal has been filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Chairman/Secretary under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for setting aside the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum - I) in Complaint Case No. 1152/93/A.98 for being contrary to law and facts as against the record.

AS per the averments made in the Complaint Case No. 1152/93/A.98 the respondents/complainants submitted an Application Form along with Bank Draft dated 18.5.1997 for the sum of 8,000/- for registration of the flat under Lease Hold Plot Scheme for General Public, 1987. The respondents/complainants deposited the sum of Rs. 32,000/- on 5.1.1991, Rs. 30,000/- on 30.5.1991, Rs. 24,000/- on 22.7.1991 and then Rs. 8,402/- on 24.7.1991 respectively. The appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board issued allotment letter No. 325 dated 30.4.1991 to the respondents/complainants allotting dwelling unit No. 2051, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh to whom the respondents/complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 9,100/- as penalty on 24.4.1992 and completed all other formalities as required by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board. The respondents/complainants filed a complaint in the District Forum-I in which they had prayed that the appellant/respondent be directed to pay interest @ 24% on the paid amount for the period for which the actual and physical possession has been delayed, pay damages @ 25% per annum w.e.f. 29.11.1991 which the complainants would have earned as rental of the said flat, and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damage for the harassment and mental agony. However, the physical possession of the flat was not delivered to him, hence alleging deficiency of the service on the part of the appellant. The District Forum- I found that delay in the delivery of possession, which constitutes deficiency in the service on the part of the appellant for which the complainants are required to be compensated. It has in its order stated that there is no mathematical yardstick to measure compensation yet keeping in view the criteria of reasonableness, we deem it expedient to award Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant who otherwise has been given a flat at the old rates despite his having deposited the initial amount late as mentioned earlier and Rs.2,000/- as costs. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I, the appellant - Chandigarh Housing Board has attempted this Appeal No. 127 of 2000. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, namely, Mr. Jagdish Marwaha and the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Arunjeev Singh Walia, Advocate and carefully perused the order of the District Forum-I, along with the record of the complaint case. We now proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties.

Briefly the respondents/complainants, namely, Daljit Singh s/o Jagat Singh and Kulwant Kaur w/o S. Daljit Singh, 1041, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh submitted an application form along with Bank Draft dated 18.5.1997 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for the registration for a flat under Lease Hold Plot Scheme for General Public, 1987. On receiving the application and demand draft the appellant sent acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 13.4.1988 and the respondents/complainants were allotted registration No. 490. As per the avernments made in the complaint Case No. 1152/93/A.98 the respondents/complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 32,000/- on 5.1.1991, Rs. 30,000/- on 30.5.1991, Rs. 8,042/- on 27.7.1991 and a penalty for a sum of Rs. 9,100/- on 25.4.1992, the details of which are given in the para 4 of the complaint.

THE respondents/complainants have alleged that despite depositing the total amount and completing all other formalities as required by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board the physical possession of the flat was not delivered to them which is a gross deficiency in the service on the part of the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board. THE respondents/complainants had been left with no other alternative but to file the complaint in the District Forum-I. THE District Forum - I issued notice to the opposite party who appeared and filed reply inter alia therein that as per acceptance-cum-demand letter issued by the opposite party - Chandigarh Housing Board on 13.4.1988 the respondents/complainants were required to make payment of Rs.8,000/- within 30 days of issue of the said letter and sum of Rs. 24,000/- in four half-yearly instalments of Rs. 6,000/- each payable by 10.10.1988, 10.4.1989, 10.10.1989 and 10.4.1990 respectively. However, these amounts were not paid on due dates for which the respondent/complaint was liable to make penalty of Rs. 9,042/-, which was paid on 25.4.1992. THE appellant/respondent has further averred in its reply that as per Clause 3 of the allotment letter which was issued on 30.4.1991, the respondents/complainants were required to make payment of Rs. 62,042/- and to submit the requisite documents including affidavit for Higher Purchase Tenancy Agreement within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. It is alleged that the respondents/complainants delayed the payments and after a number of reminders finally paid to the appellant''s account on 27.7.1991. THE interest for the delayed payment payable as per the acceptance-cum-demand letter was deposited on 25.4.1992. THE respondents/complainants completed all the formalities on 12.11.1992. It has further been averred in the reply that the possession of the dwelling unit could not be handed over to the respondents/complainants as they did not clear dues and amount kept on increasing day by day due to interest and penalty/liquidated damages, watch and ward charges as stipulated in various Clauses of the allotment letter. The respondents/complainants filed replication in the District Forum-I controverting the allegations made in the reply and asserted that the facts stated by the appellant are not true, hence there is deficiency on the part of the appellant for not giving the possession of the flat in time.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants Mr. Arunjeev Singh Walia, Advocate and after perusing the record with utmost care and circumspection, we find that this is a case wherein the dwelling unit No.2051, Sector 47-C was allotted to the respondents/complainants vide allotment letter No. 325 dated 30.4.1991. As per the Clause 3 of the allotment letter the respondents/complainants were to deposit a sum of Rs. 62,042/- and submit documents detailed therein within 30 days from the issue of the allotment letter. The possession of the dwelling unit was to be handed over on receipt of the said money and documents. However, the said amount of Rs. 64,042/- stood credited in the account of the appellant on 27.7.1991 and the requisite documents were furnished on 15.11.1991. The respondents/complainants also deposited the interest amount for the delayed payment on 25.3.1992. However, the appellant/respondent did not find the documents in order so the respondents/complainants were asked to attend the office and complete the formalities on 12.11.1992. As per the Clause 5(1) of the allotment letter the respondent/complainant became entitled to get physical possession on 12.11.1992 and the possession of the flat was delivered on 29.12.1995 after a delay of about three years. We find that the respondents/complainants were entitled to the possession of the flat on 12.1.1992, whereas they have been handed over physical possession after a lapse of three years on 29.12.1995. This clearly shows that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/respondent, which is writ large. The District Forum-I has correctly assessed that there is deficiency on the part of the appellant in giving possession of the flat after three years to the respondents/complainants who had paid the complete amount including the interest at the delayed payment. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. Appeal dismissed.