Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh (Retd.), President;
Dr. (Mrs.) Amrit Tewari, Member
PRADEEP SINGH BAKSHI—Complainant
versus
PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANOTHER—Respondents
Complaint Case No. 68 of 1990 — Decided on 17.2.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Jagdish Singh, Asstt.
For the Respondent No. 2:Sh. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate.
The cancellation of an allotment of a flat is justified if the allottee fails to make timely payment of the remaining price of the flat.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - SECTION 15 - SECTION 17 - SECTION 21 - CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION - ALLOTMENT OF FLAT - CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT - REFUND OF DEPOSIT - INTEREST ON DEPOSIT - LITIGATION COSTS - SUMMARY: The complainant applied for allotment of a flat under a housing scheme floated by the respondent Board. The Board allotted a flat to the complainant, who deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. However, the complainant failed to make full payment of the price of the flat and the Board cancelled the allotment. The complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking allotment of a flat or compensation for the loss suffered by him. The Commission held that the cancellation of the allotment was justified as the complainant had failed to make timely payment of the remaining price of the flat. However, the Commission directed the Board to refund the amount of Rs. 80,000/- deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cancellation of the allotment till the date of actual refund. The Commission also directed the complainant to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the respondent who was unnecessarily arrayed as a respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant applied for allotment of a flat under a housing scheme floated by the respondent Board. The Board allotted a flat to the complainant, who deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. However, the complainant failed to make full payment of the price of the flat and the Board cancelled the allotment. The complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking allotment of a flat or compensation for the loss suffered by him.
Finding of the Court:
The Commission held that the cancellation of the allotment was justified as the complainant had failed to make timely payment of the remaining price of the flat. However, the Commission directed the Board to refund the amount of Rs. 80,000/- deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cancellation of the allotment till the date of actual refund. The Commission also directed the complainant to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the respondent who was unnecessarily arrayed as a respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the allotment of the flat was justified? 2. Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the amount deposited by him? 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to interest on the amount deposited by him? 4. Whether the complainant was liable to pay litigation costs to the respondent who was unnecessarily arrayed as a respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The cancellation of the allotment of the flat was justified as the complainant had failed to make timely payment of the remaining price of the flat. 2. The complainant was entitled to a refund of the amount deposited by him, as the Board had failed to refund the amount immediately on cancellation of the allotment. 3. The complainant was entitled to interest on the amount deposited by him, as the Board had failed to refund the amount immediately on cancellation of the allotment. 4. The complainant was liable to pay litigation costs to the respondent who was unnecessarily arrayed as a respondent.
Final Decision: The complaint was partly allowed. The Board was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 80,000/- deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cancellation of the allotment till the date of actual refund. The complainant was also directed to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the respondent who was unnecessarily arrayed as a respondent.
Mr. Justice Surinder Singh (Retd.), President — This complaint has been filed by Shri Pradeep Singh of Chandigarh through his General Attorney Sh. Kanwarjit Singh against the Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh and Smt. Manpreet Kaur, with the allegations which are these. The complainant applied for allotment of a house i.e. HIG flat under Partial Self-Financing Scheme floated for S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). The respondent Board allocated a house to the complainant in Sector 71 of S.A.S. Nagar vide letter dated 3.6.1988 (Annexure C-2) at the tentative cost of Rs. 2,80,000/- payable by instalments as indicated in the letter. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/- with the respondent Board. It is alleged that a H.I .G. flat was allotted to respondent No. 2 who is said to have been registered in the year 1988 and had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only. With these allegations a claim was made for the loss said to have been caused to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs. The exact break up of this loss under various heads has not been given. The prayer made is that either a direction be issued to the respondents to allow a H.I.G. flat to the complainant as per letter dated 3.6.88 or in the alternative to pay Rs. 6 lacs as compensation for the loss suffered by him.
2. Notice being issued to the respondents, they filed their respective replies to the complaint. The case of the respondent Board is that the complainant had failed to make full payment of the price of the flat in terms of the letter of allocation and after issuing him reminders the allocation was cancelled. The complainant did not file any appeal against this cancellation nor represented before the competent authorities of the respondent Board, even for reconsideration of the cancellation. It was further admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-. He however failed to pay the balance amount due. In so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned it was contended that the allegations of the complainant to the effect that Flat No. 157, Sector 71, Mohali which was allotted to the said respondent had earlier been alloted to the complainant or anyone else was wrong. The respondent claimed heavy costs for being unnecessarily arrayed in these proceedings.
3. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the complainant mainly emphasized that the complainant had deposited a large amount of Rs. 80,000/- and he ought to have been alloted a flat and that the cancellation of the allocation in his favour was not justified because the letter issued by the Board in this connection had been sent to a wrong address. According to the Counsel, the letter Annexure C-1 indicated the address of the complainant as 439, Sec. 35-A, Chandigarh, but as per letter Annexure C-6 he had intimated about the change of his address as C/o S. Kanwarjit Singh, House No. 2707, Phase VII, S .A.S. Nagar (Mohali). It is further contended that letters Annexures 21,22 & 23 in consequence of which his allocation was cancelled were addressed to the 12, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. A closure scrutiny of the record reveals that even at the time when the complainant sent the deposit of Rs. 70,000/- to the respondent Board vide Annexure C-9, he had mentioned the address as 12, Sector 8- A, Chandigarh. It was but natural for the Board to send the correspondence to him at that address. The request of the complainant for the change of address as contained in his letter dated 18.9.90 (Annexure C-6) was made much later that the cancellation of the allocation vide Annexure-23 which is dated 5.7.90. This request was, therefore, meaningless. It is also worthy of notice that even in the letter Annexure C-2,12, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh is also shown as the address of the complainant. In the circumstances it was the complainant himself who was responsible for his fate by not making a timely deposit of the remaining price of the flat, or making
