SAROJ DOGRA Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.01.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA No. 228/2011, 'Saroj Dogra & Anr. vs. Chandigarh Housing Board', vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 11.07.2011, passed by the District Forum-I UT Chandigarh in complaint case No. 691/2010, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant Saroj Dogra alongwith her late husband Kuldeep Dogra bought a commercial booth from the OP, Chandigarh Housing Board in the name of their son Nipun Dogra, who is complainant No. 2, in an auction held by the OP on 30.10.2002. The total cost of the said booth was Rs.15,70,000/-. The complainants deposited 10% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs.1,57,000/- with the OP on the same day. They sought extension in time for payment of a sum of Rs.2,35,500/- to compete 25% of the bid money. The OP granted them the said extension till 28.11.2002. The complainants deposited the amount of Rs.2,35,500/- alongwith Rs.71,667/- as ground rent on 25.11.2002. The OP issued an allotment letter for the said booth on 09.12.2002 and also delivered the possession to them on 18.12.2002. In accordance with the conditions of the allotment, the balance 75% of the bid price, i.e., Rs.11,77,500/- was to be paid either within 30 days without any interest or with interest @18% p.a. in 3 instalments payable on 01.12.2003, 01.12.2004 and 01.12.2005. The complainants chose the latter option for the said payments and are stated to have paid a sum of Rs.7 lakhs on 09.10.2003, Rs.85,000/- on 06.01.2004 and Rs.4 lakh on 12.07.2004, making it a total sum of Rs.11,85,000/-. In this way, the payment of first two instalments was made even before time, the last date for second instalment being 01.12.2004, rather same payment was made in excess to the OP than that required for the first two instalments. The present dispute relates to the payment of 3rd instalment which was due on 01.12.2005. It has been stated that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,62,000/- on 18.09.2004 and did not make any payment thereafter. The case of the complainant is that they sent a letter dated 29.12.2005 to the OP and asked them to issue No Due Certificate to them. The said letter was, however, misplaced in the office of the OP. Rather than issuing him a No Due Certificate, the OP demanded a sum of Rs.3,83,789/- from them after a long period of 5 years. The case of the complainant is that the action of the OP in asking for the said amount of Rs.3,83,789/- after a period of 5 years amounts to an unfair trade practice.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the OP Chandigarh Housing Board is that the complainant failed to make full payment of the outstanding amount due from them and hence, under the terms and conditions of the allotment, they were required to pay the said outstanding amount, alongwith interest including the penal interest, as laid down in the terms and conditions of the said allotment, which were duly accepted by the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the OP to issue No Due Certificate and to refund the amount of Rs.3,83,789/- with interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 15.09.2010 and payment of compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental harassment and Rs.21,000/- as cost of litigation.