Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/864/2019

Sudama Mulchandani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/864/2019
Date of Institution	:	22/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	04/02/2021

 

Sudama Mulchandani s/o Sh. S.B. Mulchandani, H.No.2121/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Chief Accounts Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Dr. Sushila Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Averments are, complainant – a retired Central Government employee and senior citizen – had purchased a flat No.2121/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh from the OPs. On 29.11.2011 he had submitted application for conversion of land under aforesaid dwelling unit from lease hold tenure to free hold tenure as per provisions of The Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease Hold Tenure to Free Hold Tenure Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 1996 Rules). The application of the complainant alongwith the documents was scrutinized which was found in order and the complainant was advised to deposit the sum of ₹450/- and ₹300/- towards stamp duty and processing fee respectively. Further case is, complainant vigorously followed up with the OPs regarding the execution of the conveyance deed, but, the matter was dilly dallied.  The OPs asked for NOC from the bank from where the complainant had raised education loan. OPs were apprised, said loan was not raised for the purchase of the flat, but, it was an education loan for higher studies of his son abroad.  Subsequent thereto, OPs again delayed the matter and the complainant also deposited the conversion fee of ₹4,070/- which was duly acknowledged. The conversion of the said property was approved by the OPs vide letter dated 14.9.2012 and the complainant was advised to submit conveyance deed in triplicate for its execution within six weeks and the same was submitted by him. However, vide order No.131 dated 20.11.2012 issued by the Chairman of OP-1 it was directed in future all the cases of execution of conveyance deed shall be dealt with after taking latest report on violations in the building duly verified by the respective executive engineer to keep a check on allottee against violations.  After receipt of report on 3.1.2013, with intent to delay the matter, it was referred to the Architect Wing to seek confirmation regarding need based changes. The OPs vide letter dated 22.7.2013 denied the execution of the conveyance deed in view of the report of the Executive Engineer that there were certain violations. The complainant vide letter dated 10.4.2015 apprised the OPs that as per notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration, building violation was delinked from the conveyance deed. Maintained, OPs themselves admitted building violation had been delinked from conveyance deed and all the documents submitted by the complainant were found in order.  Again the OPs advised the complainant to deposit the amount of ₹5,900/- which was done by the complainant to avoid any further delay.  Maintained, conveyance deeds in respect of DU No.2121/2, 2121/3 and 2120/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh with similar alterations in the same block/building were executed on 5.3.2012, 1.12.2009 and 27.10.2011 respectively. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to execute the conveyance deed in respect of flat in question; refund the excess process fee of ₹5,900/- alongwith interest; pay compensation of ₹10,00,000/- and ₹25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and crux of their reply is, there were violations, therefore, the conveyance deed was not executed though the affidavit was submitted of there being no violation.  Other averments made regarding moving of application, deposit of amount and sometimes the matter was approved for the execution of the conveyance deed not denied. The net result is again claimed there was violation and, therefore, the conveyance deed was not executed.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     The complainant filed rejoinder rebutting the allegations made by the OPs in their written reply and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OPs and gone through the record of the case, including written arguments. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties and plethora of documents annexed, on demand of the OPs every formality was fulfilled with regard to deposit of the amount etc. It is not the case of OPs, case of the complainant does not fall within the 1996 Rules. Nowhere it was disputed. Time and again, whatever objections were raised, same were met with by the complainant and the perusal of the reply itself shows, objections were being raised for the purpose of objections only which are resulting into harassment of a senior citizen who is in the evening of his life.  
7.     In the correspondence and deposit of the amount, submission of stamp duty 5-6 years were taken and again the matter was reopened in the year 2018.  Here we shall refer to paragraph No.3 (preliminary objections) of the written reply of the OPs and the same is reproduced as under :-

“3.  That answering OP has proceed the case for obtaining approval from the competent authority regarding conversion of above said dwelling unit from lease hold to free hold and the case has been approved by the competent authority.  Immediately answering OP conveyed the complainant vide letter No.283 dated 20.08.2018 to deposit conversion charges.  The complainant has replied to this letter that he cannot deposit the conversion charges as he has already deposited the same. In the meantime Chandigarh Administration (Estate Branch) issued a clarification vide letter dated 01.05.2018 (copy enclosed as Annexure OP-3 that for registration purpose the present conversion rate may be taken for calculation of stamp duty/registration purpose the present conversion rate may be taken for calculation of stamp duty/ registration fee for execution of deed of conversion, in cases allottee/GPA holder has got the house converted from lease hold to free hold but have not got the deed of conveyance executed timely. It is pertinent to mention here that latest building violation from the Enforcement branch as building violation report is on record whereas he has given an affidavit that there is no building violation. The answering OP again requested that Enf. Wing to supply the latest building violations status of the said case. As per report sent by EE-Enf vide their office letter No.155 dated 31.01.2019 vide which they also enclosed a copy of demolition order issued vide No.3 dated 23.02.2012. Copy enclosed as Annexure OP-4.”

 

Perusal of above shows, OPs had proceeded the case for obtaining approval from the competent authority and the case had been approved by the competent authority, but, the amount was not deposited. The amount was deposited in pre 2018 period when the matter was taken up for the needful onwards 2012.  This falsifies the stand of the OPs that there were violations and as such the conveyance deed could not be executed. The OPs themselves have diluted their initial stand regarding violations reported in the flat purchased by the complainant.

8.     We shall have a glance to the violations reported which is Annexure OP-2. Under column No.2 encroachment on Govt. land/common space it is reported “Room as ver. on garage area and govt. land and balcony on front.” This is a vague report and it has not been detailed what was the nature of violations on the spot which needed to be complied with by the complainant.  A totally vague report was furnished and rightly so later on in the year 2018, the matter was sent for approval which means the case of the complainant squarely falls within the framework of the Rules and the matter was being unnecessarily delayed by the OPs without any rhyme or reason, though twice the amount was deposited by the complainant. Thus, from the above it is evident there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to immediately execute the conveyance deed in respect of dwelling unit No.2121/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.
2. to refund the excess charged amount of ₹5,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 16.8.2018 till realization.
3. to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to a senior citizen;
4. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/02/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President