State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Army Welfare Housing vs Ll Col. Mohemmed Ahmed on 22 February, 2010
. PREs:mliit' .
.--.0,-.
';-:-. -
HON'BLE JUSTICEMR.K.· ~~NAfPRE$IDENT·· ".'"
. .
SRI. T. HARiAPPA GOWDA····· ':M:EM::BER
: MEMBER\. .
Appeal No.305912009
1.Army Welfare Housing o rganisation(A WH0), South Hutments, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, NevvDelhi - 110 OIl.
The Managing Director, i~epresented by Project Director, Col. M.V. Rangaiah (Retd) '2. Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO), C/o HQ K.K and G Sub Area, Cubbon Road, Bangalore - 560 001..
Represented by Project Director,' CoI. M.V. Rangaiah (Retd) ..Opposite Partiesbefo~e JhSJ5F . .~.•AppeUaiits, ~ (By Shrij Smt. Kamalji & Gurudev 1. Gachchihamath ) LL Col. Mohemmed Ahmed Ansari, Centre for Artificial Intelligence' and ROfotics (CAIR) . .. , DRDO, Ministry of Defence"
C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore - 560 093. ,CbmplainantbefofeJtH~DF' . .... Respolldel1t
2 ' , '.
OR~:E!r{~',;,:i,';'.
SRI. T. HARIAPPA GOWDA,-ME:MBma:~;,",:,~/ . " 'T~~~\r1~~:;'~~-;:_ ..•..
:.~;.
. I ./ ! <~.
The of's aggrieved by the'''orde.r~'~~f':f.'the:I Ad~iti6tl81~.~6istticf . '. -', -:.\"':;,":,:<" .
Consumer Disputes Redressal'-'Fdth~;;<:~:BangaJ6i€ hi,' c'6mp~aitif '~,' . .. _ ',. :" '~-I."I>~.'.t '1'1~_. :i'''\ ..' .' :.f.: .• No.935/2009 dated 31.08.2009, hliwe;;fil.¢df.this appeal. s., ,:,-,' ... ' ',.
2. The brief facts 'of th~ coinplai'nant's case are asun'der:The , , complainant is serving as def~ncea!my officer at ,'centre 'for' Artificial Intelligence and· Roqotics, DRDO;,Minister 'of b~fence,G.V ., • I )_ The OP-Army Welfare Huusing Organization _(AWH0) is a private' sociew formed' ill' the 'ye~,1978;
lts head office is situated at New'Delhi!\'The -aims ,andobjectives,of .
i\\VH 0 are to construct dwelling' units' ·'for .serving/ r.etired army ~~ ..
. .
personnel and their widows' in ·sele'~ted'"stations throughout the '
, ,
In Bangalore the proJect office of AWHO is' located at )" ,': I, I" . . • • HQKK and G Sub Area, Cubbon 'Road; Bangaiore. -The complainant' lnvested with AWHO in 2002 and AWHO"issued a booking letter '. I , • dated 12.10.2004 for constructioh or'the' house within 'three ye~s'.
. . . ;" " i 'I' ~- - , . . ~.
Cost of the house was Rs.15.50 lakhsjnclucling~~the, land cost
'. ': ,', . . . . \
share. The complainant made
,.
part' 'payment· of. Rs.S;25 lakhs.
. . . .
I~ven after four and half years' the ~p~structi~n, has n?t' been compfeted. On 27.01.2009. AWHO,i'ssUed' , '.
anew booking letter in which the cost has been incteas~dfrqm,::-Rs.15.50 lakhs to. Rs.51.10 IRkhs. . It was stated that, the; "construction IS expectecr t? ~take " ,.i,' '~~;"<r~.
,..>~ .,;~j1i;fi\i~J~P~~;it~' another three years.· .AWHO· ~s:;alSO:;uf~E.tEbq.'\tt~¢"
addition~to annU~inc~~aS~f~'~~!~~~l~~t~~t'
3 5% ,i\"'~"":" .
service tax and 1%. labour Cess,ytimelin~'~j"or!ii:iayNicihr~:'1~~tI2fiLty,c~' '"." '.'- .. -'f~,..",~~:·~>i/~~;
...~.,':.,", .-~'~ :1; ,-:,,~ ~ i:-::?;"-':.~:::';: "'~";} .,I~':~_ AWHO 'conductea demanded ~t~r.ough"a-' !n6.tificatidn ,'.on:
~urV:ey', '. . :. II : " .
"
10.05.2002 for con'struction .
of three'M=yili>e'~of
housesat~Bi:lhgalofei
-.~- '" .. ~ : I '.
The complainant partidpate,d,in i the,:qclemandsurvey' by paying.
, ' I "; ""',:1 ;',' ,'.' .:
. :"1 ,;
"; ) 'I
Rs.10,000j- as commitment mOhey.&)~he,c6stof the house. was
.,'! :O'.~ .-;~ I
said to be Rs..11.2 lakhs. The AWHOistarted the registration for th~ . "
, J ~ scheme on 29.01.2003 .
with:' "
,(DPs>'Rs.80,525/
- ,'! '",- . ' ..
- , as registration " -, . .
.
, . . i ' " '
Hmount. By letter of 2004 the,!"cost,"Wasjncreased
, ," t I' I •
from Rs.l1.2!...-.
" '
lakhs to Rs.15.50 lakhs: It was
,
asked, to ,pay two inst'allm'ents <Df
- ' , . ,': ,(., -
Rs.2, 13,500/- each. In Newslettet -irt- :2003,. AWHO announced
acquiring of the land, appointirig·th~:,;~chitect,- soil investigation
~. ~ .
rlnd contour. survey apparently frotu'i'lhe nioney col1ected' from ~,
registrants. It has al~o, issued'~o opjec~~oncertificate for raising
. ,,~. . ~
loan by the complainant stating .that'the lartd Wa~in possession' of /\WHO and wa; unencumb'ered.' ,AWHO,',wasin posses~ioil' of tHe license for the project i~sued':'by, the State G~)Vernnierit which' specified the conditions, rules'arid, J regulations ' • under whiCh, a ., project is to be completed. The delay:j~' due to~prpcedur~s is a""
deficiency' on the part of AWHq.. Proh1isirig better facilities and offsetting escalation in the' market' i11 the pre-rece'ssion ,period, r . l\ WH<5 intimated the increas~' 'in , ~ost' 'to Rs.19.9'5 lakhs, o~ 14.12.2005 and maintained:th~update'.as on 30.-09.2008 on their' website. But the new plan ,does hot l}avy lJ;1efac~lities for which the· cost was increased. AWHO itselfhas>~cknowledged the slump in , ' ,"}! .~~!~. .~ ~'" . , , .!.
the real estate sector and posted an~ti~~e 'Buyers backing out on
reality Delays' and therefore the' cost escalation is not justified. The
. ;, '. "
letters written by the coinplainarit 'to ,the 'AWHO asking for, I ' explanation have not been adequately' explained. complainant has filed the complaint for >.adirection to the OP to deliver the dwelling unit at the cost of Rs.15.50 lakhs committed in t he booking letter dated 12.10.2004 or in the alternative to refund the sum of Rs.5.25'lakhs with, interest'- computed using the same yardsticks of 330% increase as applied,py the OPs and to pay I '. ' .
amount after applying 330% increase for causing. mental agony to , , the complainant by denying oppOI:turiity to held ail affordable
3. The DF considering the evidence produced by both parties, accepted the case of the complainant and allowed the complaint dirf'cting the OPs to refund 'Rs.5 ..25 lakhs: to the complainant with it terest at 18% p.a from ~8.04.2005' till the date of payment and < Iso to pay compensation 'of Rs.50,000j-' and cost of Rs.2,000/-. The above order is under challenge by the OPs in this appeal.
) t, "
~ We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/OPs ;l1ld the Respondent/Complainant who appeared in person. We
5. It is not in dispute that the complainant has made initial payment of Rs.5.25 lakhs, towards the allotment of the dwelling unit with the Ops. According to the complainant though in the year 2004, the price fixed for dwelling unit was Rs.15.50 lakhs, the OP did not even start the construction" as agreed by them in the Jetter dated 10.02.2004 but subsequently issued another letter stating that the cost of the dwelling unit as Rs.51.10 lakhs. The \ontention of the OPs in the written version goes to show that in spit.e of its best effQrts it could not complete the construction work' un account of various hurdles such as obtaining the permission ['rom the competent authorities and subsequent notification of the novernment with regard to the approval of the plan. It is also contended by the OPs that even· though land of 50 acres was available with them on account of Government interference and the {10n approval by the BlAAPA'the project was delayed. It has ~'L1bstantiatedits contention for, demanding enhanced price for the dwelling unit on the ground of escalation of the cost of construction III aterials etc. Any way even if there were hurdles as contended by I he Ops, the fact remains that even now' the construction is not \Oll1pleted. The OPs have also contended that they are working for the benefit of the Army personnel with "ria loss no profit basis" and Illey have no other source of fund for the project and therefore they 118vecontended that awarding interest and compensation is not reasonable. According to the OPs they are prepared to refund the :lmount paid by the complainant but awarding interest and Counsel for the OPs that even if it is directed that the OPs are to , '"
pay interest and compensation they have'to be paid fromout of the moneys of the members only. But .'when' the OPs have not even fltarted the construction of the, project th~y must have utilized the amount paid by the complainan,t for ~J;1~;d¢velopment of the project.
,, .' I,',: t. :i}: . ,;',
" . 'Il .;~.
In that event the
. argument' of the complainant
.. . "
that he is entitled
for refund of the deposit made' by him 'with interest is acceptable.
However the impugned order re~eals''that. 'the DFhas not accepted t he case of the complainant that he is entitled for interest at 330% i. .• '.
o[ the dwelling unit to the complainailt'isa deficiency of service by
6. We have carefully gone',thr.ough the impugned order. As regards the finding recorded by'~he bF'th~t the OPs are deficient in ~crvice to the complainant is concerned the DF has come to a just dated 12.10.2004. He has paid only part of the sale consideration.
The IYF has directed the O'Ps to refund the amount' paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the last I " _ • date of the payment i.e., 18.04.2005. T~ing into consideration the '7 . 'j ,',I.' ", ",:' t.
purpose of the OPs is to provide" the dwelling units to the ..
serving/ retired Army personnel\and tr.,e~rwidows, in our opinion it care ~ towards the competlsationc~ait:J:1ed by the complainant.
, " Hence, we find no reasonable,' grcH-:llldsto interfere with the impugned order except deleting the' portion _of compensation
in1pugned order we pass the, following:
ORDER granted by the DF is concerned 'are kept undisturbed. The appeal The parties to bear the~r own costs in the appeal. The 'amount deposited by'the, App'e11ants-inthis appeal shall ~N1'"