CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION U T CHANDIGARH; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. NARAIN DASS BUDHI RAJA; JAGDISH SINGH S/O KRISHNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order, passed by State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, UT of Chandigarh on 19.1.2009, was made as a common order in five consumer complaint Nos.95 and 97 to 100 of 1999. Ten First Appeals, arising from the same, are being taken up for disposal through this common order. While facts like date of auction and the auction bid amount differ from case to case, the issues involved are common. Therefore, for facility of appreciation Complaint No.95/1999 filed by Shri Narain Dass Budhiraja was taken as the lead case by the State Commission. For the same reason, the two cross appeals, one filed in the same complaint and the other by the OPs, are being treated as the lead case in the present appeals.

(2.) The matter arose out of auction of a shop cum flat (SCF) on 4.9.1996 by the Respondent/OP-1. The highest bid of Rs.14.60 lakhs offered by the Complainant was accepted and the plot was allotted to him. The letter of allotment dated 9.10.1996 showed that 25% of the amount had been paid and the balance 75% was payable, with 18% interest, in three equal and annual instalments. For delay in payment of the instalments beyond three months, if any, penal interest at 24% was payable. The allottee/transferee was required to complete the construction of SCF within 2 years from the date of offer of possession. Over time, the Complainant paid Rs.9.55 lakhs, but did not pay the balance, alleging that no facility or infrastructure was provided at the site. In this behalf, a consumer complaint was filed on 12.10.1999.

(3.) The dispute has gone through several rounds of litigation. First, the State Commission dismissed the complaint on 22.12.2000. Appeal against the same was allowed by the National Commission on 29.11.2002 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Second time, on remand the complaint was allowed by the State Commission in its order of 9.5.2003. Once again, the National Commission allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, by its order of 17.4.2008. The order now impugned before us, was passed by the State Commission on 19.1.2009.