CHANIDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. POONAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 2.11.2011, passed by U. T. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short as, 'State Commission ') vide which appeal of the petitioner against order dated 27.6.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U. T., Chandigarh(for short as, 'District Forum ') was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that respondent/complainant was allotted Flat No. 231, Sector 45 -A, Chandigarh on hire -purchase basis, vide allotment letter dated 07.02.1989. She paid all the installments, well before the expiry period i.e. April, 2001 but to her surprise when she applied to petitioner/OP for "No Dues Certificate ", she was told that a sum of Rs.52,172.00 was recoverable from her, which included 5 annual and 7 ground rent installments. On her protest, petitioner reduced the aforesaid amount to Rs.41,131.00 vide letter dated 15.9.2009, which was further reduced to Rs.36,819.00 vide letter dated 18.5.2010, on protest of the respondent. Still discontented, respondent again protested vide letter dated 25.8.2010, upon which petitioner, vide letter dated 13.9.2010 drastically reduced the outstanding amount to Rs.21,019.00 and conceded that all monthly and ground rent installments stood cleared and the outstanding amount towards the penal interest. On receipt of the calculation sheet in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,019.00, respondent came to know that petitioner had charged Rs.42,395.00 as penalty on 83 installments which were delayed by more than 3 months @25% of the installment amount by invoking condition no.7 of the allotment letter. Whereas, the maximum penalty on each delayed installment could be Rs. 140.00.Therefore, respondent vide letter dated 7.10.2010, requested the petitioner to calculate the penalty on 83 installments @ Rs.140.00 per installment and to refund Rs. 9,756.00, after taking into account all payments made by her. When grievance of the respondent was not redressed, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as 'Act ').

(3.) DISTRICT Forum vide order dated 27.06.2011, held that since no notice was given, therefore imposition of penalty @ 25% on the installments amount is illegal and unjustified. It directed the respondent to calculate liquidated damages as mentioned in its order.