National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Lekh Raj vs Assistant Engineer, H.P. Housing on 1 June, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1938 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 07/05/2016 in Appeal No. 63/2016 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) 1. LEKH RAJ S/O. LATE AMIN CHAND R/O. VILLAGE KOLKA, TEHSIL BANGANA, DISTRICT-UNA HIMACHAL PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, H.P. HOUSING UDA, SUB DIVISION DISTRICT-UNA HIMACHAL PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Lekh Raj, In person For the Respondent : Mr. Swarn Sharma, Advocate Dated : 01 Jun 2017 ORDER The instant case depicts a perfect example of an enlightened Senior Citizen, aged about 70 years, who, undeterred by the insignificance of the quantum of the amount, is determined to pursue his cause to vindicate his stand against the high handedness and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, namely, Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority (for short "the Development Authority"), in charging a sum of ₹40/- as penal charges on the maintenance charges in respect of the house allotted to him on lease-hold basis for a period of 99 years.
2. In short, the grievance of the Petitioner in the Complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una (for short "the District Forum") was that the demand of additional amount of ₹57/- in the maintenance charges bill dated 05.07.2014 was not only arbitrary, the threat of levy of interest @ 14% and disconnection of basic amenities such as water/sewerage connection, on the total amount of ₹808/-, due for the period 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2014, payable after the due date, i.e., 30 days from the date of issue of the bill, amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Development Authority. Accordingly, for redressal of his grievance, he filed a Complaint, being no. 138/2014, before the District Forum, praying that the Development Authority be adequately penalised and the additional demand recovered be refunded.
3. The Complaint was, however, dismissed by the District Forum, vide order dated 25.02.2016 on the ground that the aforesaid additional demand was as per the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter itself. The condition, relied upon, is extracted below:-
"24. The allottee shall pay every month service charges for the maintenance of common portion and common services to the discharge such functions. The owner shall determine the amount of such charges and the decision of the owner in this behalf shall be final and binding on the allottee. In case maintenance charges are not paid within the prescribed period, the allottee will be liable to pay penal interest @18% per annum."
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission. As noted above, the State Commission, while endorsing the view taken by the District Forum has dismissed the Appeal with costs, quantified at ₹1,000/-. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
5. Having heard the Petitioner, who appears in person, as also learned Counsel for the Development Authority and perused the documents on record, which include the receipt acknowledging receipt of ₹848/-, as maintenance charges, alongwith a levy of 5% and the application filed by the Petitioner with the Respondent, protesting against the charging of interest @14% p.a. as penal interest, we are of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable.
6. It is quite intriguing to note that though in the afore-noted maintenance charges bill dated 05.07.2014, the Petitioner was threatened with the levy of interest @14% p.a. on the bill amount, i.e., ₹808/-, and the total amount payable after the due date was worked out at ₹865/-, the Development Authority actually accepted a sum of ₹848/- against the said bill, by imposing levy @5% only. Pertinently, the said levy was neither the rate of interest as mentioned in the aforesaid bill dated 05.07.2014 nor was it as per the stipulation in the afore-extracted condition No. 24, relied upon by both the Fora below. Hence, iIf the stand of the Development Authority was to be accepted, that the demand raised in the bill was as per the terms and conditions of Lease Deed, as held in the impugned order, we are unable to fathom any reason as to why a levy @ 5% was imposed on the Complainant while accepting the payment against the aforenoted bill of ₹808/-. Manifestly, the threat of disconnection of basic facilities provided to the house, on Complainant's failure to pay the overdue interest @14% p.a. was without disclosing to the Complainant its basis. If such a decision had been taken by the functionaries of the Development Authority, as pleaded by learned Counsel appearing for them, the same had to be notified as per the prescribed procedure. No such decision has been placed on record or even pleaded in the written version filed on behalf of the Development Authority.
7. In the light of the above-stated factual scenario, we are convinced that the failure on the part of the Development Authority in not acceding to the prayer for waiver of interest charged @14% p.a., made by the Petitioner in his letter, admittedly received by them on 19.08.2014, amounted to deficiency in service on their part, causing unwarranted harassment to him.
8. In view of the above, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, with a direction to the Development Authority to refund to the Petitioner a sum of ₹40/- within four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. The Petitioner shall also be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹5,000/-.
9. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER