HOUSEFED PUNJAB SCO Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant who is respondent no. 1 herein, applied to the petitioners for allotment of a category I flat on 8.3.2009 in the scheme floated by the petitioner at Banur vide application form no.960. The total cost of the flat was shown to be Rs.20.18 lakhs. Along with the application he deposited Rs. 1,01,000/- by way of demand draft being 5% of the initial deposit of the cost of the category I flat. The draw was held on 9.6.2009 but the complainant was not successful. Upon enquiry, he came to know that his name was placed at SI. No. 16 of the waiting lost. As per condition no.2(f), the waiting list was valid for one year from the date of closing of the scheme and the refund of the initial deposit was to be made within 90 days, i.e., upto September 8,2009. As the complainant was in dire need of money, he approached the petitioners seeking refund vide his request which was received by the petitioners on 20.7.2009. However, when he did not get the refund he also approached the two petitioners who were OPs-1 & 2 respectively before the District Forum and respondent no.2 which were OP-3 and also submitted reminder dated 27.8.2009. He was surprised to know that he had already been allotted a flat and hence the refund was being sent to his banker, after deducting 25% of the initial deposit. He, therefore, submitted a representation on 11.9.2009 for refund of full amount in terms of clause 2(f) but to no avail. In the circumstances, he approached the consumer forum by filing a complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Ops amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs 1 & 2 resisted the complaint and denied the allegations made by the complainant. In their written reply. OP-3 admitted that the complainant took loan from them but it was denied that the complainant sent a copy of the reminder dated 27.8.2009 to them. Pleading that neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice has been alleged nor any relief has been claimed qua OP-3, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.

(2.) On hearing the parties and appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum vide its order dated 5.4.2010, accepted the complaint and directed OPs 1 & 2/petitioners to refund the total amount of Rs.1,01,000/- (less already paid) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the entire amount was paid by the OPs to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Complaint against OP-3/R-2 was dismissed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the petitioners carried the same before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (Union Territory), Chandigarh ('State Commission' for short) by challenging it in an appeal. This appeal of the petitioners was, however, dismissed with cost by the State Commission vide its impugned order 2.5.2011 and the order of the District Forum was upheld. The petitioners have now approached this Commission through the present revision petition against the impugned order.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sethi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. We find that the District Forum and the State Commission both have rejected the defence of the petitioners and have returned their concurrent finding of facts while accepting the complaint of R-1 and granting relief in his favour. We have gone through the record and the case particularly the grounds of revision and the orders of the fora below and do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the two fora below. The issues raised by the petitioner have already been considered by the State Commission in its well-reasoned order while dismissing the appeal. In this context, the following observations of the State Commission made in paras 9 to 11 are quite relevant and the same are reproduced below :-