SUBHASH KUMAR JAIN Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid five appeals have arisen from common order dated 20.9.2005 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum). The facts have been culled from the complaint titled Subhash Kumar Jain v. Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, etc., bearing complaint case No. 978 of 2002.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the Chairman Chandigarh Housing Board had published a scheme for allotment of HIG (Upper) flats in Sector -38 (West), Chandigarh. The said scheme was opened on 23.5.1996 and closed on 22.6.1996. The copy of the brochure of the scheme is Annexure C -1. The appellant Subhash Kumar Jain applied for allotment of HIG (Upper) flat and deposited Rs. 50,000 with the respondents (opposite parties), being the earnest money along with the application. The draw of lots was held on 11.12.1996. The appellant was a successful allottee of one of the dwelling units in Sector -38 (West), Chandigarh, but the respondents did not issue the acceptance -cum -demand letter to him and kept him in the waiting list at Serial No. 16 and informed to the appellant (complainant) about this fact vide letter No. 1293 dated 16.1.97. It was next averred that respondents had advertised for the allotment of HIG (Upper) comprising 180 units but issued acceptance cum - allotment letter to 162 allottees and no reason was communicated to the appellant as to why such allotment letters were not issued to all the 180 units. Subsequently the respondents issued acceptance cum - demand letter to the appellant on 4.10.1999 vide letter No. 8809, inter alia asking him to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 within thirty days of the issuance of letter i.e. by 2.11.1999, further Rs. 1,80,000 by 10.4.2000, another Rs. 1,80,000 by 10.10.2000 and last amount of Rs. 1,80,000 by 10.4.2001.

(3.) IT was further averred that the appellant deposited the amounts as asked by the respondents and on 26.4.2001, respondents issued allotment letter No. 91 and fixed the price of the flat as Rs. 12,97,700 whereas the cost of other similar HIG flats was Rs. 11.00 lacs for HIG (Upper) ground floor and Rs. 8,37,000 for first and second floors HIG flats, therefore, increase in the cost of flat from Rs. 11.00 lacs to Rs. 12,97,700 was arbitrary, illegal and against the well settled law of the land and no reason whatsoever was mentioned for fixing the higher price. Thus, they were required to refund Rs. 1,96,600 to the appellant along with interest @ 24% p.a. as he had deposited the entire amount with the respondents being the cost of the flat.