IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 14.01.2025 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION (CGEWHO)

… Petitioner (s)

Versus GULSHAN RAJ KAKKAR ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Advocate (through VC)

Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘National Commission’) whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘State Commission’) dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure P-3)

has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the State Commission and the National Commission had erroneously held that the petitioner is liable for the payment of interest on the amount deposited by the respondent on account of delay in handing over possession of the flat, although no delay could be attributed to the petitioner, as the completion of the project was only provisionally scheduled for October 2010 and was subject to change. Moreover, the respondent was given the option to withdraw from the Scheme but he did not choose to exercise the same and now he cannot turn around to claim compensation for the alleged delay in handing over the possession. He further submits that the petitioner is a ‘no profit no loss’ organisation and undertakes construction and development of housing projects under various government led social welfare schemes on a ‘no profit no loss’ basis for the Central Government employees. Therefore, in the absence of any generation of profit or income for the petitioner, the respondent-complainant has paid no consideration, and he would not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the consumer complaint would not be maintainable against the petitioner.

3. Heard.

4. The petitioner is stated to be the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization, which had floated a housing scheme for construction of multiple flats in the year 2005. The respondent, who is a retired government employee, had applied for a Type-B (2 BHK) flat comprising 900 square feet at a tentative price of Rs.16,50,000/- and was allotted the same on 17.03.2008. The respondent is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.18,01,190/- as the area of the flat was increased from 900 square feet to 1005 square feet. Thus, the respondent had made complete payment by the year 2010. As per the terms and conditions, the possession of the flat had to be delivered to the respondent within 30 months i.e., by October 2010. When possession was not delivered by that date, the respondent was constrained to issue a Legal Notice. In its reply to the Legal Notice on 28.01.2011, the petitioner had stated that possession would be delivered by October 2011. However, the possession was not delivered even by that date and was delivered only on 25.08.2014 (Annexure P-14).

5. The State Commission, by its order dated 22.02.2022, had allowed the complaint preferred by the respondent against the present petitioner (OP No.

1 in the complaint), holding it liable for ‘deficiency in service,’ as there was a delay of more than three years in delivering possession. The Commission had directed the payment of interest @ 9% per annum from October 2010 to 25.08.2014 on the deposited amount of Rs.18,01,190/- to the complainant, as well as a composite amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for ‘deficiency in service,’ ‘unfair trade practice,’ and for mental harassment, agony, and pain suffered by the complainant, along with litigation expenses.

6. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order of the State Commission, the National Commission had reduced the rate of interest on