Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member:
1. This complaint has been filed by Excel Cooperative House Building Society, Chandigarh through its Secretary, Sh. A.S. Kalsi against the Chandigarh Administration through its Administrator and Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chief Administrator for deficiency in service/unfair trade practices for charging interest and lease money/ground rent even when no lease deed has been signed between the Society and the Administration/Board.
2. Opposite party No. 1, Chandigarh Administration floated a scheme vide a notification dated 28.5.1991 for the allotment of land to Cooperative House Building Societies registered under Societies Registration Act, in Chandigarh (Annexure C-2). The scheme was floated with a view to promote cooperative housing and for optimum utilization of land by constructing multi-storeyed structures and by allotting the land to Cooperative House Building Societies in Chandigarh opposite party No. 1, Chandigarh Administration, allotted 95 acres of land on 29th October, 1991 in Sectors 61 and 63 to opposite party No. 2, Chandigarh Housing Board for the allotment of the same to the Cooperative House Building Societies. It has been alleged by the complainant Society that the opposite party No. 2 did not deposit the funds with opposite party No. 1 resultantly allotment of land was cancelled. This land was specifically meant for Cooperative House Building Societies only and the land was to be allotted to the societies in pursuance of the notification dated 28.5.1991. Opposite party No. 1, Chandigarh Administration again allotted land to opposite party No. 2, Chandigarh Housing Board on 30.10.1992 but opposite party No. 2 again failed to deposit amount with the opposite party No. 1 and the subsequent allotment of land was again cancelled.
3. It has been averred in Para 4 of the complaint that as per Clause 4 of the scheme the opposite party No. 1 was to allot the land on chunk basis to the opposite party No. 2 for its further allotment to the eligible Cooperative House Building Societies from whom applications were invited under Clause 3 of the Scheme having sufficient funds and resources to the satisfaction of the Estate Officer. This land was to be allotted to the complainant Society on lease-hold basis for 99 years for the construction of multi-storeyed structure dwelling units and their allotment to the eligible members. The land so allotted was to be planned in consultation with the Chief Architect and Secretary, Architecture Department, U.T., Chandigarh and developed by the Engineering Department as usual. As per the public notice, the Societies were asked to deposit 25% of the land premium by 31.3.1992. The complainant Society applied for allotment of land and deposited a sum of Rs. 9,29,204.37 with opposite party No. 2 before 31.3.1992. It has been alleged in Para 5 of the complaint that as per the scheme and notification the opposite party No. 1 allotted land to opposite party No. 2 @ Rs. 500/- per sq. yard on chunk basis for further allotment to Cooperative House Building Societies in accordance with notification dated 28.5.1991 and the rate of Rs. 750/- per sq. yrd. was fixed taking into account the land for roads, services (amenities as defined in Punjab Urban Development Act, 1952) including 10% administrative charges by the opposite party No. 2.
4. Inspite of the fact that the Society had deposited 25% of the land cost i.e. Rs. 9,29,204.37 p, the opposite parties did not allot the land by 31.5.1992 as promised by them in the guidelines. The complainant Society wrote a letter dated 13.10.1992 (Annexure C-3) to opposite party No. 2 and for the allotment of plot/land as the Society is one of the oldest societies. Another letter dated 13.4.1995 was written by the Society to the opposite parties and they were requested to allot the land to the complainant Society as the opposite party had already allotted land to those societies who deposited 25% of the land cost with opposite party No. 2 (Annexure C-4).
5. In reply the Society received a letter dated 4th May, 1995 from Chandigarh Housing Board, opposite party No. 2, that the complainant Society was allotted land by clubbing with another Society, namely, Blossom Cooperative House Building Society but the allotment letter could not be issued in favour of the Society as a structure existed on the proposed site. It was further conveyed that the Housing Board has already taken up this matter with the Chandigarh Administration for alternative arrangement (Annexure C-5).
6. The complainant Society further alleged that in pursuance of the scheme, the Chandigarh Administration - O.P. No. 1 allotted land to O.P. No. 2, Chandigarh Housing Board measuring 95.14 acres in Sectors 61 and 63 in Chandigarh on 4th September, 1991. Allotment letter dated 4.9.1991 allotting 95.14 acres is placed on record by the complainant Society. This allotment was specifically made for the Cooperative House Building Societies. The complainant Society further alleged that this land was used by Chandigarh Housing Board, O.P. No. 2 for their own purpose and flats were built and sold for heavy profits and no land out of this allotment was allotted to the complainant Society and this fact has also been admitted by the Chandigarh Housing Board. Chandigarh Administration further allotted 129 acres of land on 30th October, 1992 and Chandigarh Housing Board was required to pay a sum of Rs. 7.80 crores to the Estate Officer towards 25% of the land cost within one month as per Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. The Chandigarh Housing Board, O.P. No. 2, failed to deposit complete amount and paid only Rs. 6 crores upto May, 1993 but the land, however, was not allotted to the complainant Society for the reasons known to the complainant. The repeated reminder of the Society was not replied back by the opposite parties and no allotment of land was made to the complainant Society. However, the land was ultimately allotted to Society on 8.6.1993 in Sector 48-A, but possession of the plot was not handed over to the complainant Society despite its repeated requests and the complainant Society having deposited the instalments well within time.
7. It has been alleged by the complainant Society that the delayed allotment of land is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It has been alleged that the non-verification of the site itself is a deficiency in service. The Society deposited a huge sum of money and no possession was delivered to the Society till January, 1997 when the plot was allotted to the complainant Society on 7th August, 1996 in Sector 48-A. It has been alleged that this is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which the Society seeks appropriate remedy. It has been alleged that the land was allotted in Sector 48 but this land was also not fit for construction because there was no water, drainage, electricity, etc. on this land and a totally undeveloped land was allotted to the complainant Society. Whereas, as per the verification dated 28.5.1991, the totally developed land was to be handed over to the Society as the opposite party had already taken Rs. 250/- per sq. yd. for development purposes.
8. It has further been alleged in Para 11 of the complaint that the land was allotted to the complainant Society on 7th August, 1996 and the paper possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant Society on 16.1.1997. Whereas the opposite parties started charging ground rent from the complainant Society since 29.11.1994 itself. Charging of ground rent/lease money without allotting and without handing over possession of the land is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Copy of the allotment letter is annexed as Annexure C-7.
9. It has further been averred that on perusal of Clause 8 of the allotment letter lease is to begin from the date of allotment by the Administration to Board but not from the date of allotment to the Society that means the lease money is being charged even before the allotment of land to Society and to the information of Society that no lease has been executed between the Administration and Board. It has been explained that the Board is not an owner of the land allotted to the Society. Lease rent can be charged only by the owner. The Society wrote a letter dated 18th August, 1996 to opposite party No. 2, where it was requested not to charge ground rent from 29.11.1994 as they would be unfair to the Society because allotment was issued in August, 1996 and the possession was not delivered to the Society (Annexure C-8). After taking over paper possession, the complainant again wrote a letter dated 19.7.1997 requesting the opposite parties not to charge ground rent from 29.11.1994 (Annexure C-10). The complainant Society also wrote letters dated 12.5.1998, 5.8.1998 and 30.11.1998 (Annexures C-11 to C-13) whereby the ground rent was deposited with the opposite parties under protest.
10. Section 10 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold Sites and Building Rules, 1973 provides that no ground rent and interest can be charged without possession of developed sites. It has been averred in Para 12 of the complaint that according to Para 3 of the guidelines Society is entitled to rebate of 5% in land cost. Para 3 of the guidelines is reproduced as under :
âThe Society shall be given rebate of 5% in the land cost in the event of depositing 25% premium by 31.3.1992 as mentioned in para 6.â
The Society be allowed rebate of 5% in the land premium which had not been allowed by the Board in the instalment schedule attached to the allotment letter along with interest @ 24%.
11. The members of the complainant Society deposited the initial 25% of the amount well within time after deducting 5% rebate on the amount deposited but the rest of the instalments were paid in full. However, this should not debar the Society for claiming 5% rebate on the total land premium paid by it because opposite parties never objected to the deduction of 5% rebate while depositing 25% amount by the Society (Annexure C-14). Societies are, therefore, entitled to claim 5% rebate on Rs. 750 per sq. yd. which comes to Rs. 37.50 per sq. yd. This fact has been conveyed to the Board by the Administration. The grant of rebate of 5% on the total land cost was an incentive and the Society is entitled to rebate of 5% which comes to Rs. 37.5% per sq. yd. The complainant Society in Para 13 of the complaint has alleged that the O.P. No. 2 has illegally charged interest/lease money/lease rent amounting to Rs. 672,750/- from the Society and the administration is bound to return the same within interest 18% p.a. upto 31st August, 1999 which comes to Rs. 2,08,196.38. It has been prayed by the complainant Society that the opposite parties be directed to allow the 5% rebate on the total land premium amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. It is further alleged in Para 15 of the complaint that in a similar case where any Society i.e. Blossom Cooperative House Building Society, which was allotted land after clubbing with the complainant Society filed a consumer complaint case No. 17 of 1996 in this Commission and after examining the whole issue, the Commission held that the Chandigarh Housing Board is liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till its certificate that the land is fully developed and fit for construction. The Commission further held that the complainant is entitled to rebate of 5% in view of the memo No. 80812/UTFI(3)-96/1611 dated 8.2.1997 because memo No. 222 dated 16.1.1997 only shows a formal possession has been delivered to the Society in Sector 48-A. The Commission further held that the Chandigarh Housing Board is hereby liable to pay interest to the complainant @ 18% p.m. on the deposit amount till the Chief Engineer or the officer next junior to him of the U.T., Chandigarh issues a certificate that the site is now fit for construction of houses. The amount shall be adjustable qua the future ground rent/lease money, copy of the order annexed as Annexure C-17. It has been alleged that the complainant Society is also similarly placed as the Blossom Cooperative House Building Society has been clubbed with it and also given possession by the opposite parties on 16.1.1997, hence the complainant Society is also entitled to the same relief as was given to the Blossom Cooperative House Building Society. As far as the interest on deposits qua the instalments are concerned, the complainant Society is going to seek an appropriate remedy before Honble National Commission as this is a separate cause of action.
12. Finally, the complainant Society has prayed to direct the opposite parties to refund/adjust the ground rent paid till today by the complainant Society to the tune of Rs. 6,72,750/- and interest of Rs. 2,08,176.38 at the rate of 18% till 31.8.1999 totalling Rs. 8,80,926.38. Costs of Rs. 20,000/- has also been prayed by the complainant Society.
13. In reply, filed on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration by Sh. S.P. Arora, HCS, Assistant Estate Officer, Exercising the powers of Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh, the facts regarding the notification dated 28.5.1991 for the promulgation of a scheme known as Chandigarh Allotment of Land to the Co-op Housing Building Societies Scheme, 1991 with a view to promote private housing and optimum use of land for constructions of multi-storeyed buildings, dwelling units have not been controverted. It has also been confirmed that Chandigarh Administration initially conveyed its decision vide memo No. 30/1/F-3/91/8323 dated 16.8.1991 to allot land measuring 95.14 acres to the Chandigarh Housing Board @ Rs. 500/- per sq. yds. for further allotment to the Cooperative House Building Society in Sectors 61 and 63 respectively. Accordingly a letter of intent was issued in favour of the Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board vide memo No. 1008/M/G-III dated 4.9.1991. The Board was required to pay Rs. 23,02,38,800/- as full premium or Rs. 5,75,59,700/- as 25% tentative premium with the Estate Officer within 30 days from the date of issue of the aforesaid letter of intent but the Chandigarh Housing Board failed to deposit the same within the stipulated period, hence this allotment letter was cancelled.
14. Thereafter the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration vide their letter No. 30/1/FI(3)-92/4429 dated 24.4.1992 conveyed another decision to allot land measuring 129 acres approximately (53.3 acres in Sector 48 and 73.7 acres in Sector 49) to the Chandigarh Housing Board in lieu of the land earlier allotted in Sectors 61 and 63. Accordingly, a letter of intent was issued in favour of Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board vide their office memo No. M-994/G-III dated 30.10.1992 and allotment letter was issued vide office memo No. 1837/M-1004 dated 28.5.1993. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the Chandigarh Housing Board was required to deposit the sum of Rs. 9,37,150/- falling short of 25% premium of land within a period as specified in the allotment letter issued on 28.5.1993 (i.e. 30 days from the date of taking possession) failing which the transfer of land will be cancelled. However, the Chandigarh Housing Board failed to deposit the said amount within a period of 30 days. On this, the Chandigarh Housing Board vide their letter No. 30/11/UTFI(3)-94/7004 dated 17.5.1994 cancelled the offer made to the Board measuring approximately 129 acres of land.
15. Thereafter, the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration (O.P. No. 1) vide memo No. 30/11/UTFI(3)-94/16753 dated 28.10.1994 allotted the land measuring 106.443 acres in Sectors 48-A and B, Chandigarh afresh to the Chandigarh Housing Board, on lease-hold basis for 99 years @ Rs. 500 per sq. yd. on chunk basis for further allotment to the eligible Cooperative House Building Societies for construction of their dwelling units and finally allotment letter was issued in favour of the Chandigarh Housing Board vide office Memo No. 20712/M-1004/GVI dated 29.11.1994.
16. In reply to the Para 10 of the complaint, the opposite party No. 1, Chandigarh Administration has stated that the status with regard to providing of various services for the development of land allotted to the Society in Sector 48 is given as under :
â1. Roadsâ(a) The work of laying WBM of V-4 roads in Sector 48 was completed in 12/97 and surface dressing of the V-4 roads was completed in 10/98.
(b) The work of laying WBM of V-5 roads in Section 48 was completed in 12/97 and dressing of surface was completed in 6/98.
(c) The work of laying WBM of V-6 roads in Section 48 was completed in 1/98 and surface dressing was completed in 2/98.
2. Water supplyâThe water supply lines in the area of Section 48A were completed on 5.8.1997 and the same were handed over to the Municipal Corporation, U.T., Chandigarh for release of water supply connections on 25.6.1998.
3. Sewer linesâThe work of laying sewer lines in Section 48A was completed on 11.3.1996 and was handed over to the Maintenance Division on 15.3.1996.
4. Storm water drainangeâThe work of laying S.W.D. in Section 49A was completed on 20.6.1996 and the same was handed over to the Municipal Corporation on 6.2.1997.
5. Temporary electricity connectionâThe Electricity wing of the Engineering Deptt. was ready for release of the temporary connections for the purpose of construction work in Section 48A, Chandigarh in October, 1996. The first temporary connection was released in this sub-sector on demand to the Secretary, Market Committee on 3.10.1996 and thereafter the temporary electricity connections were released on demand to the various societies. The Engineering Deptt. of the Chandigarh Administration has framed the policy for the release of electricity connection to various cooperative house building Societies in the UT of Chandigarh bearing notification No. GI/CE/4 dated 14.2.2000, copy enclosed as Annexure R-1.
In terms of the above policy of the Chandigarh Administration erection of pole-mounted or indoor Sub-station as the case may be along with entire HT/LT System including transformer(s), HT Switchgears, LT switchgears, etc. after the metering cubical of the Elecy. Wing is to be installed by the Society itself as per Clause 12 of the allotment letter issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh as reproduced below :
âThe provision of facilities and estate services within the land allotted to the Society shall be responsibility of the Society itself which shall also be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of common areas/services as also for the collection and depositing the individual water, electricity dues, etc. to the concerned authorities.â
In addition to the above, it has been averred in the reply that in pursuance to the order dated 25.1.1999 passed by the this Commission in Complaint Case No. 17 of 1996, Blossom Cooperative House Building Society the certificate has already been issued to the fact that the site allotted and handed over to the Blossom Cooperative Housing Building Society in area in Sector 48-A where the site of Excel Cooperative House Building Society falls was for the construction on 25.6.1998 when all the services were available and encumbrances cleared (Annexure R-2). It has further been averred that there no deficiency in service on the part of the Chandigarh Administration and the complaint be dismissed with costs.
17. In reply the opposite party No. 2, Chandigarh Housing Board, raised preliminary objections saying that there was no delay on their part in delivering the possession of land because there was stay order obtained from Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court by owner of the land which was earmarked in Sector 48-A for the complainant Society and its co-allottee Society.
18. In the second preliminary objection, it has been stated that the scheme for the allotment of land to Cooperative House Building Society had been notified by Chandigarh Administration under which the complainant Society was to be allotted the land and the Chandigarh Housing Board is acting only under the direction of Chandigarh Administration.
19. In the third preliminary objection, it has been contended that the complainant Society is not a consumer since allotment of land by Government under statutory scheme is not covered by the term âservice as defined under the said Act. In the fourth preliminary objection, it has been alleged that the Resolution dated 30.8.1999 (Annexure C-1) is not relating to the filing of the present complaint before the State Commission and the Signatory of the complainant had never been authorized by the Executive Committee to file the present complaint before the State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh because Annexure C-1 is relating to filing of the suit before National Commission, Delhi, which is very much clear from the Annexure C-1 available at Page 21 of paper book. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone as the Executive Committee of the said Society has never authorized the signatory of this complaint to file a complaint of original nature before the State Commission.
20. In the fifth preliminary objection, it has been contended that the result of consumer complaint No. 17 of 1996 decided by this commission is under challenge before the Honble National Commission and the matter is sub judice, therefore, benefit cannot be derived by the complainant Society from the order of this Commission.
21. On merits, it has been stated by O.P. No. 2, that there was no delay on the part of the Chandigarh Housing Board in delivering the possession of the land to the complainant Society as it is an admitted fact that stay order from the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court was obtained by the owner of the land which was earmarked in Sector 48-A for the complainant Society and its co-allottee Society. The facts of the complaint regarding the allotment of land to the complainant Society have not been controverted. It was only in the year 1996 that the stay order was vacated by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in respect of the existing structure in village Jumru and accordingly the Chandigarh Housing Board without wasting any time issued allotment letter to the said Society which was clubbed with the Blossom Cooperative House Building Society vide its office letter dated 7.8.1996. Therefore, it has been averred that there was no delay on the part of the Chandigarh Housing Board in any manner. It has been averred that the result of complaint case No. 17 of 1996 decided by this Commission is under challenge before the Honble National Commission and the matter is sub judice, therefore, no benefit can be derived by the complainant Society from the order of this Commission given in the complaint case No. 17 of 1996. It has been confirmed by the Chandigarh Housing Board that the Society deposited 10% of 25% upto 1.6.1992 after collecting funds from various Cooperative House Building Societies and deposited amount with Land Acquisition Officer, U.T., Chandigarh amounting to Rs. 5 crore on 29.6.1992 and 1 crore on 21.7.1992. Thereafter, the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh conveyed the decision of the Chandigarh Administration to allot land measuring 129.90 acres in Sectors 48 and 49 @ Rs. 500/- per sq. yd. for 99 years on lease basis vide letter dated 30.10.1992 (copy annexed as Annexure R-3) and asked the Board to pay full cost or 25% of the cost of land within 30 days. Finally, the balance amount of Rs. 1,80,45,000/- was deposited with the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh. The 25% of the cost of the aforesaid land was worked out to be 7,80,45,000/- and the same was deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer well in time. The complainant Society had deposited Rs. 9,29,204.37 p with the Board upto 31st March, 1992 the date for depositing the balance 25% earnest money to complete earnest money was further extended upto 31st March, 1993 and the complainant Society deposited Rs. 12,60,293.62 upto 31.3.1993 as the Society has not completed 25% in respect of all its members and it could not be considered for allotment of land at that time. Thereafter, fresh screened members were cleared by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and in order to consider them with their respective societies, another circular dated 14.6.1994 was issued to the Society including the complainant Society to deposit 25% earnest money had revised deposit on behalf of its freshly screened members along with documents. The Society deposited Rs. 3,21,388/- on behalf of such fresh screened members and old members. Clause 4 of the said scheme provides that the land allotted will be developed by the Engineering Department of the Chandigarh Administration and the land shall be planned in consultation with the Chief Architect and Secretary, Architecture Department, U.T., Chandigarh. The complainant Society had deposited Rs. 15,81,681.62 upto 12.8.1994 for the allotment of land.
22. It has further been averred by the O.P. No. 2, Chandigarh Housing Board that as per the decision of the Chandigarh Administration letter dated 16.8.1991, Chandigarh Housing Board issued an allotment letter @ Rs. 750/- per sq. yd. to the eligible Cooperative House Building Societies including the complainant Society. The rate of Rs. 750/- per sq. yd. has been fixed taking into account the land for roads, services including 10% administrative charges. The Finance Secretary, U.T., Chandigarh had made it clear that the internal development of the chunk is to be done by the Society itself vide Finance Secretary letter dated 23.3.1995 as per the Clause 12 of the allotment letter.
23. It has further been clarified by the Chandigarh Administration that the Societies which deposited 25% earnest money upto 31.3.1992 are eligible for rebate of 5% of the 25% earnest money. The amount of Rs. 7,45,284.37 which was deposited upto 31.1.1992 was not equal to 25% of all the members of the complainant Society. It was averred in the reply on the basis of its own admission that it has deposited the amount of the earnest money to the extent of 25% which was demanded by the Board upto 31.3.1992 only after deducting 5% of their own, therefore, the default in making the 25% of the earnest money amount stands admitted and in this way no rebate is permissible to the complainant Society.
24. Finally, it has been averred in Para 19 of the evidence that the matter regarding the complaint case No. 17 of 1996 is sub judice and is before the Honble National Commission. Therefore, the complainant Society cannot take benefit of the said order because the said order has not attained the finality. In view of this the complaint be dismissed.
25. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, Mr. K.C. Sahu, Govt. Pleader for the O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the O.P. No. 2. We have also perused the record of the complaint case and documents adduced therein with utmost care and circumspection.
26. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, learned Counsel for the complainant has relied the whole complaint case on the order of this Commission in complaint Case No. 17 of 1997 with respect of Blossom Cooperative House Building Society which is distinguishable in this case because the complainant had not deposited the whole amount and retained 5% rebate which was supposed to be given by the Chandigarh Housing Board later after having received the full amount. He vehemently pleaded that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have not been able to provide the service which they were supposed to hence there is a serious lapse and both the opposite parties are deficient in services to the complainant Society. The complainant Society has suffered great mental and physical harassment hence should be compensated as prayed in the complaint.
27. Mr. K.C. Sahu, Govt. Pleader appearing for opposite party No. 1, Chandigarh Administrator, contended that Chandigarh Administration is not at all at fault in allotting the land to the Cooperative House Building Society. First it allotted land in Sectors 61 and 63 but because the Chandigarh Housing Board could not pay the amount hence the allotment was cancelled. However, it again considered the case of the House Building Society and allotted land to the Chandigarh Housing Board in Sectors 48 and 49. Further action for the allotment of land to the Societies is on the part of the Chandigarh Housing Board only and O.P. No. 1 is not deficient in any manner.
28. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 brought out that the complainant Society deposited 25% of the earnest money for the land allotted to the Society by deducting 5% at their own. This deduction of 5% under the Clause of the allotment letter is only to be given by the Chandigarh Housing Board and the complainant Society has no business to deduct this amount at their own, hence the complainant Society itself is deficient. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate argued that the present complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer since the allotment of the land by Government Statutory Scheme is not covered by the term âservice as defined under the said Act. He further argued that the Resolution dated 30.8.1999 (Annexure C-1) is not relating to the filing of the present complaint before the State Commission and the signatory of the complaint has never been authorized by the Executive Committee to file the present complaint before the State Commission because Annexure C-1 is relating to filing of suit before the National Commission, Delhi. He further contended that the complaint has not been verified in accordance with the requirements of law and in fact it is no complaint in the eyes of law because the same has not been instituted by any competent and authorized person. Moreover, the Resolution as placed on record has no authenticity because of the photo-copy of the Resolution which was passed in the meeting has not been placed nor any record regarding alleged meeting and its agenda has been placed on record. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2.
29. It is pertinent to bring out here the memo No. 412-UTFI(3)-96/1611 dated 8.2.1996 of Chandigarh Administration and Clause 5 thereof, which is reproduced as under :
âThe rebate @ 5% on land premium for early payment as allowed to the societies by the Administration is not effected by the societies themselves. They are supposed to make the full payment and rebate to be given by the Administration/Chandigarh Housing Board on receipt of the full payment from the societies and adjusted against the next instalment. The societies who have applied the rebate at their own level by making the payments, should be asked to pay up remaining portion of the instalment of premium immediately.â
This clearly shows that deduction of 5% of land premium for early payment allotted to the Society by the Chandigarh Administration/Housing Board is not to be effected by the Society at its own accord. The contention of the complainant regarding order of this Commission in complaint case No. 17 of 1996 is clearly distinguishable as the complainant Society did not make full payment of 25% of earnest money to Chandigarh Housing Board by retaining 5% rebate without any authority.
30. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the complaint. The complainant Society has not been able to establish any opposite party on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. Resultantly, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges.