HARDEEP KAUR CHHETRA Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Hardeep Kaur, a widow of a fallen hero, against the order of the State Commission, dismissing her complaint.

(2.) Brief facts necessary to appreciate the case are that the husband of the complainant who was SP (Operation) in Taran Taran made the supreme sacrifice while fighting the terrorists. Since the widow had no house of her own, on representation being made to the Governor, Punjab, who was also Administrator UP of Chandigarh, allotted, her a house on ground floor in Sector 45A from his discretionary quota vide order dated 9.8.1989 as a sequel to which Chandigarh Housing Board informed the complainant on 18.9.1989 about the allotment and asked her to complete certain formalities and to deposit Rs. 20,000/- along with making application in a prescribed form. All these were completed by 26.9.1989. Now started the long chase by a poor widow and she reminded the respondent to allot her a flat vide her letter dated 24.1.1990 and also sent a letter to the Administrator on 14.2.1990. Finally a letter of allotment dated 5.3.1990 from respondent was received indicating tentative cost of the flat at Rs. 3,78,000/- without earmarking any flat number and asking the complainant to deposit Rs. 85,665/- by 10.3.1990 and a further amount of Rs. 55,000/- at the time of possession and the remainder amount was payable in monthly instalments but no allotment of a particular flat was forthcoming in spite of reminders dated 5.4.1990 and 16.7.1990 and to the Advisor UT of Chandigarh dated 26.10.1990. What in the bargain she gets a letter dated 26.10.1990 is to complete certain formalities which had already been completed on 26.8.1989. However, this is again done on 29.10.1990. On 23.11.1990, the complainant is informed that the total consideration (price) for the flat shall be Rs. 4,09,200/- and asked to deposit Rs. 77,967/- and for the first time, allotting a separate Flat i.e. No. 149, HIG Category I in Sector 45A, Chandigarh. Payments are made. Possession of the flat is deemed to have been given on 23.11.1990. A representation is made to the Chairman, Housing Board on 21.2.1991 to not to revise the price of the house from Rs. 3,78,000/- to Rs. 4,09,200/-. This is rejected. It is in these circumstances that the complainant moved the State Commission for relief, who after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Consumer Forums cannot go into the question of pricing of flats, hence this appeal. It is argued by the authorised representative of the complainant, Mr. Jaswant Singh that there is no dispute about the basic facts of the case. State Commission was not right in coming to this conclusion that the only point involved was price. According to him two points need to be seen. Firstly as per its written version filed by the respondent before the State Commission that the escalation arose out of interest for one year @ 13% p.a. and Chowkidar charges of Rs. 50/- p.m. which cannot be called cost escalation and secondly delay in handing over possession is entirely on account of the respondent Board for which complainant could not be held responsible. Flats were ready in June, 1990 and had the possession been given at that time, admittedly the old price would have been charged. For this deficiency/delay alone the respondent need to be faulted. In a similar case one Veena Kamboj was allotted a flat in similar conditions but the final price charged is Rs. 3,78,300/- which the complainant is also willing to pay. This is not a dispute relating to price, hence could not have been dismissed by the State Commission. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent Board, Mr. L.K. Pandey that this is a clear case of cost escalation. Vide their letter dated 5.3.1990 what was communicated was a tentative cost of Rs. 3,70,000/- and final cost was worked out to Rs. 4,09,200/-. It is against this escalation of Rs. 31,200/- that complainant had approached the State Commission and the State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as Consumer Forums cannot look into the question of price of a house/flat etc. Respondent was very keen to deliver the possession early but two reasons crept in, to cause delay. First, a stay was granted by the High Court which was effective from 20.4.1990 till its vacation on 23.8.1990 and secondly the new Administrator ordered review of all the allotments made under the discretionary quota. It is these factors which caused delay in delivering of the flat. According to him allotment of flat to Smt. Veena Kamboj cannot be compared to the present case as Smt. Kamboj had been allotted a flat on the basis of draw of lot held on 14.4.1990 and had been making deposits as per scheme of 1986. On all these grounds he prayed that the appeal is not maintainable, hence need to be dismissed.

(3.) We have gone through the bulk of material on record and heard the arguments and find that most of the facts of the case are not disputed. It is no doubt true that the deceased husband of the complainant lay down his life fighting terrorist for which he was awarded President's Gallantry Medal. Administrator of UT Chandigarh in exercise of powers conferred on him allotted a flat to the complainant from his discretionary quota on 9.8.1989 based on which, what could be termed a Reservation Letter was issued by the respondent Board on 18.9.1989. What we see is that it is clearly stated in the letter issued by Raj Bhawan on 9.8.1989 that the condition of three years' residence at Chandigarh may also be waived in her case, yet on the letter dated 19.8.1989 this is not done - perhaps a glimpse of the psyche of the respondent Board as to how not to help a widow of a fallen officer. Again if we see the letter dated 5.3.1990 to the complainant, she is asked to deposit Rs. 87,665/- by 10th March, - given less than a week to deposit such a heavy amount. Had the amount not been deposited in time, the respondent Board would have gleefully cancelled the allotment. In spite of depositing the money and completion of formalities in time, mystery still surrounds as to why did it take the respondent Board eight months to allot her a flat by November, 1990. Stay of the High Court was operative between April, 1990 and August, 1990. Flat could have been allotted before April or immediately after vacation of stay, but perhaps that is not the style in which the respondent Board functions. We have nothing on record to show as to why allotment to the complainant could not be made in April, which would have enabled her to pay the old price as was done in the case of Smt. Veena Kamboj in whose favour allotment was made on 30.7.1990 and total price charged is Rs. 3,78,300/-. Why could not the same be done in favour of the complainant. It is true that Consumer Forums cannot go into the question of price of a flat or a house but that is not the case here. It is not the price per-se - i.e. a change in valuation occasioned by variations in costs, like cost of construction, changes in prices of material used or any change in the compensation of land acquired etc.; these are some of the contributing factors having a bearing on the final price, which shall depend on the facts of each case but this is not the case pleaded by the respondent. As per written version filed by the respondent before the State Commission, sole cause of cost increase of Rs. 31,200/- is on account of interest @ 13% p.a. on the original cost plus Chowkidar charges Rs. 50/- per month. In our view this is not the definition of 'price' - though result is the same. Had the public body like the respondent handed over the possession of the house in time - this situation would not have arisen. Keeping back the furnished houses on some pretext or the others, and then to go on to add 'interest' and 'Chowkidar charges' and then to label them as price escalation cannot but be a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It is no one's case that payment of instalments were not made in time or formalities not completed by the complainant.