CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. SHARWAN KUMAR KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated

(2.) THE present complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent through his general attorney Sh. Raghbir Singh alleging that dwelling unit was allotted to him by the OP/appellant vide letter dated 10.1.1983 (Annexure C -l). He was to make the initial payment of Rs.12,370 and to pay the remaining amount in instalments of Rs. 992 every month for a period of 10 years. The complainant claimed to have paid the entire amount and requested the OP/appellant vide his letter dated 9.5.2005 (Annexure C -2) to issue the no due certificate and when no reply was received, he sent a reminder dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure C -4). He issued reminders/applications dated 19.5.2005, 8.11.2005 and 10.1.2006. He then applied on 17.8.2006 vide Annexure C -5 under the Right to Information Act upon which he received a reply vide Annexure C -6 dated 19.9.2006 informing him that the case was under process. The OPs vide their letter dated 12.10.2006 raised a demand of Rs. 85,669 before the no due certificate was issued, out of which the complainant deposited Rs. 20,000 vide Annexure C -8 on 29.11.2006 but the OP/appellant again wrote a letter dated 11.1.2007 which was resented by the complainant/ appellant alleging that he was being excessively penalized and the accounts were required to be looked into. He again wrote a letter dated 20.4.2007 (Annexure C -12) to which he received a reply dated 26.5.2007 (Annexure C -13). The complainant deposited Rs. 66,122 on 14.5.2007 and Rs. 5992 on 9.7.2007. This amount was deposited under protest. The contention of the complainant is that excessive interest @ 25% per annum has been charged from him which was otherwise not payable. The penalty could not exceed 10% per annum but it had been charged @ 32% and 66% which are against the allotment letter. The complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint alleging that the OP have charged Rs.l lac in excess of what was due from him and he demanded Rs. 5 lacs as compensation on account of deficiency in service.

(3.) THE complaint was opposed by the OP/appellant alleging that he has no locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of the allottee, that he never paid the instalments in time and was, therefore, liable to pay interest. It was denied if any excess amount has been recovered from the complainant. It was admitted that he was requested to deposit Rs. 66,122 vide letter dated 31.5.2006 but the said amount was deposited on 18.6.2007. The no due certificate was alleged to have been issued at his address but was received back refused by the addressee. The contention of the OP/appellant was that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.