LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2005-3-5

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. CHANDER KANTA & ANR

Decided On March 29, 2005
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Appellant
V/S
Chander Kanta And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board (for short hereinafter to be referred as CHB) against impugned judgment and order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 503 of 2001 vide which the appellant/O.P. No. 2 has been directed to pay to the complainant interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 19,910/ - from 1.12.2002 till payment along with Rs. 500/ - as costs.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the appellant/O.P. No. 2 was not a party initially impleaded in the complaint case, which was filed only against Telehos Employees Cooperative House Building Society (for short hereinafter to be referred as Society). The complainant had in the unamended complaint sought relief against the society for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant for payment of interest and damages of Rs. 30,000/ - for causing harassment and mental agony. The complaint was filed way back on 20.8.2001 and the same was decided. An appeal was filed against the order of the District Forum, which was allowed and the complaint case was remanded to the District Forum. After the remand of the case, the society filed written statement wherein a plea was raised about the CHB being a necessary and proper party, which came up for consideration before the District Forum and the District Forum allowed the plea of the society and directed the respondent/complainant to file an amended memo of complaint. The amended memo of complaint was filed impleading the society as O.P. No. 1 and the CHB as O.P. No. 2. In the amended complaint dated 19.7.2004, the respondent/complainant prayed for grant of following relief:

(3.) BUT the impugned judgment and order, the complaint has been allowed against the society. The District Forum has directed only the appellant/O.P. No. 2 - CHB and fastened liability on it. Though the impugned judgment and order went against the complainant insofar as his complaint qua the society is concerned, the complainant has not filed any cross -appeal against the impugned judgment and order for fastening liability against the society as well, which was the only O.P. initially impleaded in the complaint case.