Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that he purchased H.No.553, 'B' Category, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh, on General Power of Attorney from Mr.Amar Nath (Original Allottee) on 10.10.2000. The allotment of the said House No.553 was given to the original allottee Mr.Amar Nath vide letter dated 25.03.2000 and the physical possession was taken by him on 24.04.2001. It was averred that in the month of October 2002, some of the allottees of the Society filed a Petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh as per Society Act/Rules against the Construction Contractor who was not removing the defects in the flats. Out of the Court settlement, the Construction Contractor agreed to pay Rs.7 Lakh FD to the CSIO Society Management and waive off the bill of Rs.10.5 Lakh against the defects in construction of dwelling units. The CSIO Management in its meeting held on 08.10.2003 decided and distributed Rs.7 Lakh among the 41 Members of the Society as Rs.20,250/- for 'A' Category, Rs.13,500/- for 'B' Category and Rs.11,400/- for 'C' Category Members but the distributed amount was kept by the Society in its bank account. It was further averred that the amount of Rs.13,500/- of H.No.553 is lying with the CSIO Society since 30.12.2003 and it neither paid to the original allottee nor to the GPA(Complainant) who has now become the owner of the House No.553 after registration of the Conveyance Deed on 24.11.2021 in his name. The complainant requested the Society vide letter dated 21.03.2022 to pay/return the amount of Rs.13,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 01.01.2004 as this amount is lying with the society since 30.12.2023 but it returned the letter to complainant on 27.03.2022 without any reply. The complainant again sent the same letter to the Society through speed post on 30.03.2022 but to no effect. When all efforts made by the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance failed to get any result, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, a consumer complaint was filed before the Learned District Commission seeking refund of Rs.13,500/- along with interest and pay compensation & costs of litigation.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, revision petition no. 1285 of 2018 is dismissed."

8. The appellant, after passing of the order of the Hon'ble NCDRC deposited the amount of Rs.23500/- vide receipt dated 2.7.2021 (Annexure A-4) as demanded by the Society. However, the grievance of the appellant in the complaint as well as in this appeal is that in the month of October 2002, some of the allottees of the Society filed a Petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh against the Construction Contractor who was not removing the defects in the flats and out of the court settlement, the Construction Contractor agreed to pay Rs.7 Lakh FD to the CSIO Society Management and waive off the bill of Rs.10.5 Lakh against the defects in construction of dwelling units. The CSIO Management in its meeting held on 08.10.2003 decided and distributed Rs.7 Lakh amongst the 41 Members of the Society as Rs.20,250/- for 'A' Category, Rs.13,500/- for 'B' Category and Rs.11,400/- for 'C' Category Members but the distributed amount was kept by the Society in its bank account. The said amount of Rs.13,500/-, being share in respect of H.No.553 is lying with the CSIO Society since 30.12.2003 and neither the same has been paid to the original allottee nor to the GPA(Complainant) who has now become the owner of the House No.553 after registration of the Conveyance Deed on 24.11.2021 in his name. The complainant requested the OP vide letter dated 21.03.2022 to pay/return the amount of Rs.13,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 01.01.2004 but as the same was not paid, the complainant filed complaint before the Ld. District Commission. However, the respondent in its reply again reiterated the old story of conversion fee which has been deposited by the appellant. Regarding the amount of Rs.13500/- which fell to the share of House No.553 nothing has been whispered. The Ld. District Commission relying upon the reply of the respondent, dismissed the complaint without going into detail about the amount of Rs.13500/- which was distributed out of the amount given by the contractor as per out of court settlement.