State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamarur Zaman Molla vs Chandigarh Housing Board on 17 July, 2019
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 199 of 2017 Date of Institution : 08.08.2017 Date of Decision : 17.07.2019 Kamarur Zaman Molla S/o Sh. A.B. Molla, resident of H.No.2062-C Sector 63, Chandigarh. ......Appellant/Complainant V e r s u s Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh- 160009, through its Chairman. AXIS Bank, Sector 17-B, LIC of India, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. ....Respondents/Opposite parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Satinder Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Indresh Goel, Advocate for respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant for modification of order dated 07.07.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it allowed consumer complaint bearing no.454 of 2016, in the following manner:-
"8. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-
[a] To refund the excess charged amount (penal interest) of Rs.23,163/- to the Complainant;
[b] To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;
[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]."
The parties have not disputed the facts noted down by the Forum, in the order impugned. However, the grouse of the appellant is that the Forum while allowing the consumer complaint erred in not granting interest on the deposited amount, as there was delay in offering possession of the unit; not ordering refund of amount of Rs.2 lacs which was got deposited by respondent no.1 from him, under pressure; and not granting compensation as demanded therein (consumer complaint). On the other hand, Counsel for respondent no.1 contended that the order passed by the Forum, needs no modification. We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully. First, we will deal with the question, as to whether, the appellant is still entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.2 lacs or not. It may be stated here that, it is not disputed that total sale consideration of the unit, in question, was fixed at Rs.17,15,744/-. It is also not disputed that over and above the said amount, the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.2 lacs, without any protest, to respondent no.1, when demand was made in that regard. In this manner, the total amount of Rs.19,15,744/- stood received by respondent no.1 from the appellant. However, it is also not disputed that, later on, when dispute was raised by the appellant with regard to payment of the said amount of Rs.2 lacs, respondent no.1 provided calculation sheet, to the appellant, by way of incorporating the same, in the Allotment Letter dated 03.09.2015 Annexure C-23, which reads thus:-
Total consideration 1715744.00 Interest on a/c of installments 0 Penalty/Interest on delayed payments 23163.00 Service tax 60051.00 Lease Money/Ground Rent for 1 year in advance 4290.00 Any other charges
-
Total 1803248.00 Amount already paid 1915744.00 Net amount payable/Refundable
-112496.00 Out of the aforesaid amount, the amount of Rs.23,163/- has been ordered to be refunded to the appellant, vide the order impugned. Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.1,12,496/- also stood received by the appellant, from respondent no.1. It is not the case of the appellant that respondent no.1 failed to add the said amount of Rs.2 lacs, received by it, in the table extracted above. Whereas, on the other hand, perusal of contents of the said table reveal that respondent no.1 had already added an amount of Rs.2 lacs, in the total sale consideration of Rs.17,15,744/- and had then arrived that the total amount received, comes to Rs.19,15,744/- and after adjusting the payable amount, the excess amount of Rs.1,12,496/- stood refunded to the appellant and that too after reconsidering his case, on his request having been made in that regard. As far as interest on the said amount is concerned, it may be stated here that the Forum has compensated the complainant, by way of granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.15,000/- in addition to the litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-, which will take care of loss of interest, if any, suffered by him. The appellant is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation or for interest, aforesaid.
Now coming to the demand of Service Tax and Ground Rent, the same being statutory demand, the appellant was liable to pay the same. During pendency of this appeal, respondent no.1 has placed on record letter dated 24.06.2019 having been issued by the Competent Authority, wherein, it was clearly intimated, by way of evidence, that the amount of Service Tax was deposited by respondent no.1. As such, under these circumstances, the appellant cannot raise any dispute in that regard.
Now coming to the question, as to whether, the appellant is entitled to any compensation, for delay in delivery of possession of the unit, in question, as claimed by him, it may be stated here that a similar question, in respect of the same project, fell for determination before this Commission, in consumer complaint bearing No.549 of 2017, titled as 'Jorawer Singh Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board', decided on 03.05.2018, which was answered in the negative, by holding as under:-
"31. It is on record that the complainant also represented to the Opposite Party vide letter dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure C-14) to refund the excess amount charged and payment of an amount of Rs.8 Lacs on account of delay in giving possession of the unit, in question, which was replied by the Opposite Party vide letters dated 12.12.2017, 20.12.2017 and 08.01.2018 (Annexures C-16, C-17 & C-18). Vide letter (Annexure C-16), the complainant was informed that there was no provision for any compensation for the delayed possession. Vide letter dated 20.12.2017, the complainant was told that Service Tax was leviable. While explaining detailed reasons for delay of whole project, the Opposite Party in letter dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure C-18) informed the complainant, interalia, as under:-
"During the construction, the residents of SAS Nagar Mohali adjoining 3 Bed Room Flats stopped contractual agencies to take up construction of few blocks with the plea that due to 6-Storeyed flats, their privacy is affected. After lot of meetings with them, ultimately, the layout plan had to be got revised from the Department of Urban Planning, U.T., Chandigarh after shifting of few blocks from the Chandigarh/Punjab Boundary. Similarly, during the excavation of foundations of EWS Flats, underground P.H. Services were found and again CHB had to get the layout of few blocks revised and got it approved from the Department of Urban Planning, U.T., and Chandigarh.
CHB housing scheme has been carried out in a part of Sector 63 adjoining boundary of Mohali, the major portion of Sector falls under the MC, Mohali and the natural slope of the ground is towards Mohali. Therefore, it was necessary to dispose the sewerage towards Mohali and accordingly, necessary permissions to join sewerage & storm trunk lines to MC, Mohali was required. Inspite of best efforts, MC Mohali was reluctant to give such permission. Therefore, the matter was taken upto the highest level of Chairman, CHB and Secretary Engineering, UT Chandigarh with Punjab Govt. & after that MC, Mohali allowed connecting storm line with the main trunk line of Mohali and after making huge payment of Rs.6.36 crores. Municipal Corporation, Mohali, Punjab Govt. had consequently issued permission to join sewer lines of 984 flats with their main sewer trunk line in the year 2014. For laying of Load Distribution System, CHB has already deposited Rs.7.35 Crore with the U.T. Engineering Department in February 2015, the work of which was taken up by the UT Engineering Department.
Inspite of the unavoidable hurdles as explained above, CHB made all out efforts to complete the entire project at the earliest and the possession of the said houses were commenced in September, 2015.Moreover, the construction of the flats was also delayed because of ban on quarries of Sand and Bajri in UT, Chandigarh, thus there was shortage of construction material as well during that period. Thus, there were unforeseen circumstances and hindrances, which were surfaced during the construction work and these circumstances were actually beyond the control of CHB. However, the CHB has made all its best efforts to get the matter resolved. The delay in delivery of flats to the complete is not due to any negligence or willful act of Chandigarh Housing Board. The actual possession of the D.U was handed over on 21.09.2015 after issue of possession letter by the o/o CAO, CHB."
32. Undoubtedly, while dealing with the representation of the complainant, the Opposite Party explained all the force majeure circumstances/reasons, which led to delay in handing over of possession. The complainant has not averred anything in his complaint to controvert the reasoning given by the opposite party in Annexures C-16, C-17 & C-18".
In view of ratio of judgment in 'Jorawer Singh case (supra), no ground is made out for awarding any compensation on account of delay in handing over of possession of the unit, due to delay in start of construction on account of force majeure circumstances. Prayer made in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
No other point was urged by the contesting parties.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
17.07.2019 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Rg