RAJINDER KAUR vs Chandigarh Housing Board

IN this appeal filed against order dated 4.2.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2002, Smt. Rajinder Kaur through G.P.A. Sh. Waryam Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board and Another, none appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing of arguments. Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate along with Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent-Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chairman.

THE appeal as also the complaint was filed by Smt. Rajinder Kaur through Shri Waryam Singh, General Power of Attorney holder and resident of House No. 5738-A, Sector 38, West, Chandigarh. THE appellant/complainant applied for allotment of a flat under HIG Lower Housing Scheme for 216 flats, floated by the respondent-Chandigarh Housing Boad/O.P. No. 1. THE said scheme opened on 3.7.1996 and closed on 2.8.1996. THE complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the shape of draft as earnest money. In the draw of lots held in the month of January 1997, the appellant/complainant was successful and the respondent issued to her acceptance-cum-demand letter in the same month, which detailed the payment to be made as per the schedule given therein and which has been quoted in para 1 of the impugned order. It is alleged that the complainant made payment of Rs. 4,40,000/- and the remaining amount of 70% was to be paid after the total costs of flat was settled by the Chandigarh Housing Board and possession of the said flat was handed over as per Clause (v) of the aforesaid acceptance-cum-demand letter. Clause (v) provided that at the time of handing over of physical possession, Rs. 70% of the chargeable price minus amount already paid was to be paid. In Clause (vi), the balance i.e., 30% of the chargeable price was to be paid in 60 equated monthly instalments with interest or in lumpsum without interest within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. Clause (i) shows that amount to be paid within 30 days of the date of issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The date of issue of letter is 28.7.1997. Clause (ii) provides that 1st instalment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid within six months from the date of issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter i.e., by 10th of August, 1997. Clause (iii) provides that second instalment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be given within 12 months from the date of issue of the said letter i.e., by 10th February, 1998 and lastly Clause (iv) provides for payment of the third instalment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be made within 18 months for the date of issue of the aforesaid letter i.e., by 10th July, 1998.

It was further alleged that the possession of flat was required to be given to the complainant/appellant by the end of August 1998 but it was neither offered nor given to her within that time. The complainant relied on letter No. 18072 dated 11.8.1998 issued by the Chief Engineer of Chandigarh Housing Board to one Shri Manmohan Singh Bakshi stating about the completion of the construction work by the Chandigarh Housing Board and possession could not be given and further intimation for giving possession would be conveyed after the work of the Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh was completed. The Chief Engineer of the Chandigarh Housing Board also informed the Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Estate Office, Chandigarh vide letter dated 3.2.1999 with copy to Sri Manmohan Singh Bakshi. The complainant alleged that possession was offered to her in the month of January 2000 and during this period, rental had to be paid to the land-lord for hiring premises and the complainant suffered pecuniary loss. It was alleged that the respondent committed deficiency in service by not delivering possession to her by the end of August, 1998. The complainant prayed that interest on the amount deposited by her i.e., of 70% from the date of its deposit till delivery of possession, be given.

THE other grievance of the complainant was that ground rent had been charged by the Chandigarh Housing Board since January, 1996 whereas possession of the flat was offered to her in January 2000. THE Chandigarh Housing Board was not entitled to charge ground rent for the period earlier than 2000. THE complainant prayed for the refund of the ground rent paid by her from January, 1996 to December, 1999 with interest. Referring to the case of Shri Manmohan Singh Bakshi being Complaint Case No. 104 of 1999, it was alleged that Shri Manmohan Singh Bakshi was allowed the claim for grant of interest on the amount deposited by him for the period of delay and appeal filed against it was dismissed by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission]. THE complainant prayed for the grant of some relief as was granted to Shri Manmohan Singh Bakshi. The respondent filed written statement wherein it was averred that the contract between the parties already stood concluded as she had paid the price and taken delivery of possession without protest and filed the complaint after more than two years from the date of taking the possession. The allegations of deficiency in service were denied. It was alleged that as per the norms set by the Central Public Works Department, the required completion period for such a huge project was 39 months whereas the project was completed and possession delivered to the complainant within a period of 3 years and 2 months i.e., 38 months of the opening of the scheme despite the fact that considerable time was taken by the Engineering Department of Chandigarh Administration in laying other services like roads, lighting, sewerage, water supply, etc., which were to be necessarily given before offering delivery of possession to the complainant.

THE District Forum received evidence from the parties and held that the complainant failed to prove the allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. and dismissed the complaint. THE District Form imposed a costs of Rs. 1,000/- on the complainant. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal. Notice of appeal was served on the respondent who put in appearance through Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate. Record of the complaint case was summoned and received. We have heard Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate along with Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent and we have gone through the impugned order passed by the District Forum and the record of the case. The learned Counsel for the Chandigarh Housing Board/respondent made the sole submission that the facts involved in this case are similar to the facts involved in the case of Shri Pankaj Gupta v. Chandigarh Housing Board and Another, bearing Appeal No. 311 of 2002 decided on 31.3.2003, by this Commission and as such the case deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Shri Pankaj Gupta (supra), which was filed against order dated 16.10.2002 passed by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh. The copy of the judgment of Shri Pankaj Gupta''s case (supra) was shown to us and perusal of the judgment shows that appeals were found without merit and were dismissed but the order of the District Forum, insofar as burdening the appellants with costs of Rs. 1,000/-, was set aside.

THE factual controversy involved in this appeal is similar in nature as in the case of Shri Pankaj Gupta (supra) and, as such, following the judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 311 of 2002, Shri Pankaj Gupta''s case (supra), this appeal is also dismissed on merit but the impugned order is set aside insofar as it imposes costs of Rs. 1,000/- on the complainant/appellant. THE appeal is decided accordingly. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.