CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Chandigarh Housing Board is aggrieved by the order of the Chandigarh Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by which complaint of the respondent-complainant was allowed.

(2.) Complaint pertained to allotment of a flat by the appellant to the respondent. On an application filed by the respondent in Aug. 1989 for allotment of flat in Category-I, appellant allotted him on 9.11.1989 a flat in Sector 45B. Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakh to the appellant in May 1991 as per the allocation letter. This amounted to 90% of the tentative cost of the flat. In another Sector 35B people were allotted flats in Oct. 1991. There was no mention of allotment of flats in Sector 45B. Respondent met the Chairman of the appellant and he was told that there was no scheme whatsoever regarding construction of flats in Sector 45B and that in fact no land had been earmarked for the purpose. That was in January 1992. Ultimately on representation by the respondent, it was suggested to him that he could be allotted a flat in Sectors 39B/45A. Since no flat was allotted, respondent filed a complaint in the State Commission on 28.7.1992. It would appear that the appellant went in writ petition to the Punjab and Haryana High Court for stay of proceedings before the State Commission.

(3.) However, during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent was allotted a flat in Sector 35B by letter dated 13.1.1993 of the appellant. Matter rested at that writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 7.4.1995. Now respondent was asked to pay price of the flat in Sector 39B as was existing on 13.1.1993. State Commission held, in our view rightly that there was deficiency in service by the appellant. When allotment was made for the first time to the respondent in Sector 45B there was no plan to construct any flat in that Sector. The State Commission upheld the contention of the respondent that he should be charged the same price of the flat as was being charged from the allottees who were allotted flats in Sector 35B in 1991. Accordingly, State Commission held that the appellant could not charge more price and directed refund of Rs. 72,862 to the respondent. It was also held that respondent was also entitled to the refund of Rs. 6,120 charged as by the appellant. State Commission has granted a sum of Rs. 4,000 as compensation for harassment caused to the respondent and also awarded cost amounting to Rs. 5,000. State Commission had also awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 72,862 from May 1991 to 13.1.1993. The award of rate of interest is also correct and is in accordance without decision in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Darsh Kumar, Etc. Etc., I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1197/98.