State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Kusum Lata Vashisht vs Hp Housing Board & Anr. on 31 August, 2006
H
H.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHIMLA
APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2004.
Date of
Decision 31.8.2006.
Smt. Kusum
Lata Vashisht w/o Sh. Madan Lal Vashisht
R/o HIG-1,
House No. 26, H.P. Housing Board Colony,
Rakkar, Una Phase-III, Tehsil & Distt. Una, H.P.
. . . Appellant.
Versus
1. H.P.
Housing Board, Nigam Vihar, Shimla, through its
Chairman,
2. The
Estate Manager, HP Housing Board, Nigam Vihar
Shimla,
3. The Chief
Accounts Office, HP Housing Board
Nigam Vihar, Shimla,
4. The
Assistant Engineer, HP Housing Board, Sub
Division, Una, Distt.
Una, H.P.
Respondents.
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar
Goel (Retd.), President.
Honble
Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member.
Honble
Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved
for reporting? No.
For the Appellant. Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents.
Mr. G. S. Rathore, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) A complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent on account of deficiency in service, as according to her she had paid the entire amount for the house in question. She had also executed the necessary agreement, she was put in possession of house No. 26, HIG-1, in HP Housing Board Colony, Rakkar, Una Phase-III in July 1998. Balance amount was paid by her to respondent No.1 on 10.9.1999. In this background, according to her it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to have intimated the details of penal interest or any other outstanding against her. But needful was not done. It was only on 25.7.2000, she was informed that after adjusting the aforesaid amounts a sum of Rs. 58,608/- calculated upto 31.7.2000 was still payable by her. She further alleged that no details of this amount were given despite requests made by her. This amount was enhanced to Rs. 88,297/- upto 31.3.2003 by calculating interest @ 18% per annum upto March, 2003.
2. In this background complaint was filed. When put to notice respondents admitted allotment of the house in question for a sum of Rs. 6,25,700/- in case payment was paid in lump-sum. This amount was to be deposited within 30 days of the allotment letter. However, needful was not done. According to respondent because amount was paid in parts, so benefit of lump-sum payment cant be extended to the appellant.
3. District Forum below dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that an intricate question of fact and interpretation of hire purchase agreement and terms and conditions of allotment being involved and also that the appellant had disputed details of receipt of amount by the respondent which was only possible by a detailed examination and cross-examination and perusal of the detailed record which was impermissible in summary proceedings. According to us no complicated question of fact is involved in this case and observations to the contrary in the impugned order are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Rest are admitted documents executed between the parties. So District Forum ought to have determined the complaint.
4. Looking to the mandate of the Supreme Court of India in CCI Chambers HSG Ltd. Vs. Development 2003 CTJ 849 SC (CP, Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, Gaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 (first) and Gaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2005) 9 SCC 573 (second) and also of the National Commission in the case of Hari Singh Vs. HP State and Ors, FA No. 472/97 decided on 21.2.2006, we are of the view that the impugned order needs to be set aside and case remanded back to the District Forum below with a direction to restore the appeal to its original number and date and then after hearing the parties again to dispose of the complaint without being influenced by anything said either it its earlier order, or by us in this order.
5. Thus while setting aside the impugned order parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum, Una on 9.10.2006. Since date has been fixed by us, therefore, no fresh notices will be issued to anyone in any situation. Cost on the parties. Office will send back the record so as to reach well before the date fixed and office is directed to supply a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Shimla.
31st August, 2006. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel)Retd.
President.
(Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.