HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. CHANDER HASS KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Housing Board Haryana, Petitioner herein has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of Chander Hass Kaushik (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent').

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum are that on 07.03.1993 the Respondent had applied for purchase of a house to the Petitioner in Housing Board Colony, Sector-7, Kurukshetra and deposited Rs. 20,500/- vide demand draft with the Petitioner/Board. The tentative price of the house was quoted as Rs. 2,08,000/-. Respondent was subsequently allotted an MIG IIB House in Sector-7, Kurukshetra on freehold basis. Respondent deposited Rs. 49,100/- as stipulated within 30 days of the allotment. The possession of the house was to be delivered after execution of agreement for sale. The remaining 70% of the total price was to be deposited in 16 half-yearly equated instalments of Rs. 16,479/-. Respondent was delivered possession of the house on 05.10.1993 and he found that the quality of construction was very poor and, therefore, he spent another Rs. 20,000/- on upgrading the construction. He also deposited a total of Rs. 1,15,784/- including Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, he spent a total amount of Rs. 1,35,784/- on the house. However, in view of the very poor quality of construction, Respondent decided to surrender the house and requested the Petitioner to take back the possession and refund the total amount paid by him as well as the money spent on repairs. Petitioner agreed to refund the entire amount and Respondent, therefore, handed over the possession of the house. However, to the utter surprise of the Respondent, Petitioner returned only Rs. 28,738/- on 28.07.1996. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner should refund the full amount with interest @ 24% and in case the Petitioner is not willing to do so, the house in question be re-allotted to the Respondent on the same terms and conditions.

(3.) Petitioner refuted the contentions regarding the poor quality of construction of the house and stated that the Respondent took possession of it after due inspection and it is not correct that he spent Rs. 20,000/- on its repairs. Further, as per the Petitioner's surrender policy, Rs. 28,738/- was refunded to the Respondent as admissible after making the following deductions from Rs. 1,15,784/- paid by the Respondent: