National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Janak Raj on 12 December, 2001
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitioners-opposite parties are aggrieved by the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which accepted the appeal of the respondent-complainant against the order of the District Forum.
2. Dispute pertains to default in handing over of possession of HIG house which was allotted to the complainant in 1990. At that time price of the house was fixed at Rs. 3,50,000/-. In 1991 price was revised to 4,12,000/- and again revised in the year 1992 when it was reduced to Rs. 3,69,600/-. It is not necessary for us to go through various litigation which the complainant had against the petitioners. The fact remains that by letter dated 23.6.1992 complainant was informed by the petitioner about the reduction in the price of the house allotted to him. He was required to pay Rs. 1,09,800. Thereafter possession of the house was to be given to him. Balance price was payable in monthly instalment of Rs. 2579/-. There is no dispute that the complainant did deposit the amount of Rs. 1,09,800/-. When he went to take possession of the house it was found that it was incomplete and was used as store house by the petitioner. As to what were the deficiencies existing at that time in the 'incomplete house' complainant mentioned:
"i) That there is no main gate fitted for making entrance in the house.
ii) The doors are lacking with the garrage of the house. There are no window panes with doors and windows.
iii) The main hole of the sewerage is without any cover.
iv) Wiring is still incomplete and there are no boards of the electric switches. The tank for the operation of the flush system is still incomplete. There are no grills fitted uptil now."
3. Complaint was filed in November, 1996. Factual statement made by the complainant about house being incomplete were admitted by the petitioners and though it was stated that these pertained to 'installations of doors which are to be fixed after the possession is delivered'. On the face of it this submission appears rather to be strange. However, Ms. Issar, counsel for the petitioner was at pains to refer to Clause 5 of the terms of allotment which stipulate that "the dwelling unit has been allotted on 'as is where is basis' and the Board will not entertain any complaint whatsover regarding any defect in the property". It is difficult to appreciate such an argument coming as it does from the petitioner, a public body looking after the interest of its citizens. Argument on the face of it is fallacious.
4. As per the terms of the allotment letter the further amount becomes due and payable after possession is given to the complainant. This has not been done. District Forum, however, directed the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,37,597 and then to get possession of the house complete in all respects. Aggrieved by this order complainant filed appeal before the State Commission.
5. After noting that there has been delay of seven years in handing over possession of the house to the complainant though he had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,09,800/- as per demand letter dated 23.6.1992 of the petitioner, complainant was still deprived of possession of the house, State Commission said that there was no cogent reason given for the delay in not handing over possession of the dwelling unit for which payment had been made. It is also observed that demand of the petitioner for directing the lump sum payment of the balance amount of the price of the dwelling unit from the complainant before handing over the possession to him was not genuine. In the circumstances, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner should pay interest @ 15% per anum on the amount of Rs. 1,09,800/- from the date of payment till handing over of the possession of the dwelling unit. Further payments were directed to be made in terms of the letter of allotment.
6. We find order of the State Commission is unassailable. It was stated by Ms. Issar that earlier complainant had gone to civil court and then had also filed complaint before the District Forum one after the other but all these questions are irrelevant at this stage. Moreover order of the State Commission does not show if any such plea was taken before it. It is only when a person is harassed that he knocks the door of the Civil Court or the District Forum. Nobody gets pleasure in going to the Court or Tribunal for redressal of his grievance just for pleasure. This petition fails and it is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.