HOUSING BOARD HARYANA vs J.R.JINDAL

THESE two appeals bearing No. 269 of 2000 filed by Haryana Housing Board and Appeal No. 125 of 2001 filed by the complainant - Shri J.R. Jindal arise out of the order dated 10.10.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 194 of 1996. This order will dispose of both the said two appeals.

THE facts giving rise to the two appeals may briefly be narrated as under : Shri J.R. Jindal resident of House No. 3005, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh filed Complaint Case No. 194 of 1996 in the District Forum-II on the allegations, inter alia, that he had applied for a flat Type-III accommodation constructed by the Haryana Housing Board, S.C.O. No. 126-127, Sector 8, Chandigarh at tentative costs of Rs. 4.75 lacs under a Scheme which was floated some times in July, 1992. THE said flat was to be constructed in Sector 14, Panchkula. THE complainant - Shri J.R. Jindal had deposited the initial amount and was successful in the draw of lots and subsequently deposited the instalments. THE flats are alleged to have been completed in June, 1995. After the completion of the flats, draw of lots was held and the complainant was allotted flat No. 77-D. THE said complex containing Flat No. 77-D was inaugurated by the Chief Minister of Haryana on 15.6.1995. THE grievance of the complainant is that even after the inauguration of the complex, the possession of the flat allotted i.e. No. 77-D was not offered to him. This led to the filing of the complaint aforesaid. THE complainant sought a direction to be issued against the Haryana Housing Board to hand over the possession of the flat to him forthwith and for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards compensation for harassment, interest and costs of the case etc. The District Forum-II issued notice to the Haryana Housing Board who put in appearance and filed reply wherein the factual aspects of the complaint case were more or less admitted. The case set up by the Haryana Housing Board regarding the delay in offering possession of the flat No. 77-D to the complainant-Shri J.R. Jindal was that the record of the complex had been taken by the Vigilance Department of Haryana and in the absence of the record, the tentative costs of the flat would not be worked out and the letter of allotment could not be issued. The possession of the aforesaid flat was, however, delivered to the complainant on 8.7.1996 after the complainant had given the requisite undertaking.

The District Forum-II recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the delay in handing over the possession of the flat amounted to an act of deficiency of Service and it had caused loss to the complainant who was deprived of the fruits of the large investment made by him for purchasing the same. It was also held that the complainant continued to bear the burden of the rented accommodation where he had to live in the absence of his own house. Resultantly, the complaint was allowed with the costs of Rs. 1,100/- and direction was issued to the Haryana Housing Board to pay interest to the complainant @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by him up to 15.6.1995, the date of completion of the complex till 8.7.1996, less the amount, if any, paid by the opposite party i.e. the Haryana Housing Board on account of interest for delay in delivery of possession. As mentioned earlier, the Haryana Housing Board as well as the complainant - Shri J.R. Jindal both felt aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum-II and filed two appeals. Appeal No. 269 of 2000 was listed for hearing on 3.5.2001 whereas Appeal No. 125 of 2001 filed by the complainant - Shri J.R. Jindal was fixed on 22.5.2001 for which date notice had been issued to the respondent. When the attention of this Commission was drawn to the pendency of the connected Appeal No. 125 of 2001 which was fixed for 22.5.2001, the said appeal was preponed for hearing to 3.5.2001 on the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant and as not opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the two appeals were heard together.

THE contention of the learned Counsel for the Haryana Housing Board is that the District Forum-II has wrongly assessed the liability on the part of Haryana Housing Board, which was not a fraud as the delay had occasioned on the grounds, which were beyond the control of Haryana Housing Board. THE record of the complex had been taken by the Vigilance Department and as such the costs of construction of the flat allotted to the complainant could not be worked out and the possession could not be offered to him. THE contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant - Mr. J.R. Jindal, Advocate on the other hand is that the District Forum-II has not considered the question of granting compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant for many years before getting possession of the flat from the respondent and has prayed that the complainant be awarded compensation for loss of interest of Rs. 1,65,700/- till 9.11.1996 inclusive of tentative relief of Rs. 95,000/- given by the respondent as claimed and future interest on the above amount @ 18% till realization of the amount as also damages of Rs. 50,000/- as claimed. THE District Forum-II while considering the matter of deficiency in service held in Para 4, as under : "4. THE letter, copy Ex. C-2, is clear indication of the fact that the type-III house carried tentative cost of Rs. 4.75 lacs and it also laid down the payment schedule. This being the situation, it is not open to the O.P. to urge that it could not work out the tentative cost as the record was with the Vigilance Department. In any case, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for the lapse on the part of the O.P. It was for the O.P. to have procured the record from the Vigilance Department to avoid loss to the applicants and the complainant. It has to be taken note of that the complainant is paying the money by way of instalments since 1992. THE houses stood completed in June, 1995 and the possession was delivered to the complainant after the institution of the present case in July, 1996. THE delay in handing over the possession of flat to the complainant is certainly an act of deficiency in service and it caused the loss to the complainant because he was deprived of the fruits of the large investment made by him for purchasing this flat. Apart from that, he continued to bear the burden of rented accommodation where he had to live in the absence of his own house."

THE relief was granted in para 5, as under : "5. THE complaint, therefore, merits success and we allow it with costs of Rs. 1,100/- and direct the O.P. to pay interest to the complainant at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount deposited by him upto 15.6.1995, the date of completion of the complex, till 8.7.1996, less the amount, if any, paid by the O.P. on account of interest for delay in delivery of possession.

After carefully going through the reasonings and observations of the District Forum-II, we find that the District Forum-II has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and considered the material placed before it. The Haryana Housing Board cannot legitimately take a defence for the delayed delivery of possession for the record being taken away by the Vigilance Department. As a matter of fact, once the flat stood completed in June, 1995 and the flats were allotted by draw of lots, the persons to whom the flats have been allotted include the complainant to whom flat No. 77-D had been allotted became entitled to get possession of the flat as they were not at fault. The Haryana Housing Board was required to take prompt action and issue letter of allotment and give possession of the flat with promptitude. Since the Haryana Housing Board did not do so, there was clear deficiency in service on its part. The possession was, however, delivered during the pendency of the complaint case and the same was duly taken note of by the District Forum-II.

IN this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by Haryana Housing Board. At the same time, we do not find any good ground to award, interest @ 18% as claimed by the complainant - Shri J.R. Jindal on the amount of Rs. 1,65,700/- and also damages of Rs. 50,000/- for which no material by way of evidence has been placed on record and the said amount is highly excessive and arbitrary. That being so, the appeal filed by the complainant - Shri J.R. Jindal also lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed with no orders as to costs. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeals dismissed.