CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD vs RAMESH CHANDER SETHI

AS a consequence of a complaint instituted by Shri Ramesh Chander Sethi, Superintendent of Police, Punjab, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT, Chandigarh, ordered on 11.9.96 that the price of the HIG (II) flat as prevalent in July, 1991 was recoverable from him and not the enhanced price of 27.10.93 when the subsequent so-called correct allotment letter was issued to the officer. Besides this, it was ordered that Shri Sethi was entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved against it, the Chandigarh Housing Board has attempted the present appeal.

SHRI Ramesh Chander Sethi was associated with anti-terrorist operations in Amritsar and other parts of the State of Punjab in April, 1988. He had been recipient of police medals and commendation certificates. As a consequence of a bomb blast by terrorists in Ludhiana, the officer received a grievous injury and his left leg was amputated. There was a scheme by the Chandigarh Housing Board where dwelling units were available from the discretionary quota to a terrorist victim, a gallantry medal holder or a national award winner. On an application of SHRI Sethi dated 29.4.91, he was allotted an HIG (II) flat out of the two such flats which were available at that time. However, at the time, the letter of allotment was actually issued, a flat of MIG (III) was found recorded and not of the HIG (II). SHRI Sethi made a protest and the Governor of Punjab, who was the Administrator of UT, Chandigarh, ordered that HIG (II) flat was to be allotted and delivered and not MIG (III). At the time of allotment in July, 1991, the price of the HIG (II) flat was Rs. 2,67,900/- (Annexure C) whereas after its correction and re-allotment on 29.4.94, the price charged was Rs. 4,35,734/- (Annexure C7). On behalf of the appellant, it has been stressed that only MIG (III) flat on the ground floor in Mani Majra was allotted by the Administrator and this was the information conveyed on 16.8.91. The proceedings dated 3.7.91 have been perused by us. The name of Shri Sethi is at the top and thereafter the name of Smt. Shashi Gupta finds mention. There is a specific mention that there were two HIG flats in Mani Majra. Thereafter, it has been recorded that after the proposed allotments, the availability of HIG (II) flats in the discretionary quota of the Administrator shall be reduced to nil. This goes to show that HIG (II) flat was allotted to Shri Ramesh Chander Sethi and over-writing regarding the category appears to be a subsequent act which created this dispute, which was never intended by the then Administrator. At the time the Administrator considered the application of Shri Sethi, his observations were as under: "A most deserving case, we should help this Officer."

A plea that several questions of fact were involved and examination of witnesses or Hand Writing Experts would have been helpful and that the complainant should have approached the Civil Court and not the Forum has no merit in the circumstances of the case. The complainant has chosen this alternative remedy and all the relevant documents are on record including the marginal notes and formal orders of the then Governor of Punjab, who was acting as Administrator of UT, Chandigarh.

MR. Jagdish Marwaha, the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Gujarat Housing Board v. Datania Amritlal Fulchand & Ors., III (1993) CPJ 351 (NC), wherein the National Commission observed that pricing was not a factor which fell within the purview of the Consumer Redressal Forum. In this case, we are not considering the cost factor of an HIG (II) flat. The dispute only pertains to the time as to what was the price which could be charged from the respondent when the original decision of allotment of flat was made by the Administrator to this allottee on compassionate grounds. It was not a case that Shri Sethi was a bidder. On the contrary, the HIG (II) flat in question was allotted to the respondent because he was a terrorist victim and gallantry medal holder. The contention that there are several complicated questions of fact and law and that the Forum or the Commission was not competent to adjudicate has also been rightly opposed. Shri H.S. Awasthi, the learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the proceedings dated 3.7.91 when this HIG (II) flat was allotted by the then Administrator. The arithmetical result mentioned in the note itself that after the allotment of these two houses, no more HIG (II) house shall ramain un-allotted, concludes the issue that allotment was final. No expert evidence is required to rebut the plea raised by the allottee that the original allotment was not in respect of HIG (II) flat. The mere fact that temporarily an MIG (III) flat remained available to Shri Sethi, could not weaken the pleas raised on his behalf.

AFTER considering all these aspects, we mainly affirm the finding that it was on account of deficiency of the appellant that the proceedings of October, 1991 were actually implemented on 29.4.94. Shri Sethi was liable to pay the price prevailing at the time of original allotment which was Rs. 2,67,900/- and not Rs. 4,35,734/-. There was no change in the locality or the built-up area. Accordingly, it is ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,68,034/- shall be refunded by the appellant to the respondent within a period of two months. Besides this, the respondent shall be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on this sum from the date of institution of the complaint till actual payment. However, the compensation awarded is setaside. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- ordered as costs to Shri Sethi is affirmed. With this modification, the judgment of the District Forum is hereby affirmed. Announced. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Order affirmed with modification.