Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
HOUSING BOARD, HARYANA - Appellant
Versus
INDERJIT GARG - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3263 of 2011 against Order dated 26.7.2011 in Appeal No. 721 of 2006 of State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula
Decided on : 29-02-2012
Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma for Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent
The jurisdiction for filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is determined by the residence of the opposite party or the location of the cause of action.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Housing Dispute - Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 - Section 54 - Clause-4 of the Allotment Letter
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a housing board, cancelled the allotment of a house due to non-payment of arrears by the respondent. The respondent sought physical possession of the house, refund of excess payment, withdrawal of a demand, compensation, and costs.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum allowed the complaint, quashed the demand, directed the petitioner to raise a fresh demand, and ordered possession of the house with basic amenities. The State Commission dismissed the appeal based on a report confirming the dilapidated condition of the house. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the District Forum and maintainability of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The complaint was maintainable at the District Forum as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge was dismissed.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER
1. Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum. Complainant/respondent's wife applied for MIG (B) house with the petitioner on 14th November, 1977 and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000. The balance 1/4th of the total cost was to be paid by the complainant on allotment and the remaining 3/4th was to be paid in 10-13 years in instalments. After 8 years of the deposit of the amount, petitioner informed the respondent about the construction of MIG house in Ambala City. Respondent gave his consent for allotment of a MIG house and paid Rs. 6,800 as demanded by the petitioner. Respondent was allotted tenement No. 232 admeasuring 90 sq. yards vide allotment letter No. 1404 dated 25.5.1987. The tentative cost of the house was Rs. 68,900. Respondent signed a hire purchase agreement on 10.10.1990.
2. On 14th February, 1991, petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent asking him to pay the arrears due otherwise the allotment would be cancelled. The allotment was cancelled on 9th October, 1991.
3. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala set aside the order of cancellation and directed the complainant to pay balance amount. The complainant deposited Rs. 25,000 with the petitioner. The wife of the complainant (original allottee expired on 11.1.2000 and complainant was substituted as allottee). On 24th March, 2003 petitioner raised demand of Rs. 2,39,355 which the respondent/complainant refused to pay as according to him the total cost of house was Rs. 68,900 and he had already paid Rs. 99,086.
4. Complainant being aggrieved filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking following reliefs:
(i) Physical possession of the house
(ii) Refund of Rs. 30,186 (Rs. 99,086 Rs. 68,900)
(iii) Withdrawal of demand of Rs. 2,39,335
(iv) Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000
Petitioner on being served entered appearance and filed its reply. Two preliminary objections were taken, (i) The complaint was barred by time, and (ii) that the complaint was not maintainable as the respondent had already exerted to the remedy under Section 54 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 by filing the appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner before the Estate Officer On merits it was contended that since the respondent had failed to make the payment as per order of Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, the eviction order of Estate Manager had become final. Respondent had taken the possession on 10.10.1990 and he was satisfied with the amenities. Demand of Rs. 2,39,335 includes monthly instalments, final cost and enhancement cost of land compensation along wtih interest.
5. District Forum relying upon condition No. 4 of the letter of the allotment that if the dues are not paid by the stipulated date, penalty not exceeding 25% of the amount due could be imposed, allowed the complaint and quashed the demand of Rs. 2,39,335 and directed the petitioner to raise a fresh demand after making calculations as per Clause-4 of the allotment letter within one month. Respondent was directed to pay the same within one month of the receipt of the fresh demand. Petitioner was also directed to give possession of the house in question with basic amenities after receipt of the amount. Rs. 1,000 were awarded as costs.
6. Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission appointed Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate as a Local Commissioner to inspect and find out the status and condition of the house. Local Commissioner submitted the following report:
"Sir,
I was appointed as Local Commissioner by this Hon'ble Commission vide order dated 17.5.2011 with a direction to inspect the site to know the actual position at the spot and submit the report. I visited the spot in question on 22.5.2011. The respondent along with his Counsel Mr. R.D. Bedi, Advocate and representative of appellant were present on the spot. I prepared memo of presence and obtained their signature as mark of presence. I prepared a rough site plan of th
