Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. H.D. Anand - Court Judgment

Sada Nand, Member:

1. Shri H.D. Anand filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chandigarh, contending that he, in response to an advertisement given by the Chandigarh Housing Board, applied for a dwelling unit and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,500/- on 18.6.76; that it was agreed that an independent house will be allotted to the applicant; that when no action was taken, a suit was filed by the applicant in the Court of Law and after filing that suit, the respondent-Board vide their letter dated 8.2.91 asked the complainant for opting for the allotment out of the available houses and the applicant exercised his option on 21.8.91. The complainant has alleged that the respondent-Board has failed to provide any service since June, 1977 and has retained the amount of Rs. 1,500/- since then and without any interest thereon.

2. The respondent-Board in their reply, had stated that the applicant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and had got no locus standito approach the District Forum. On merits, they mainly admitted the facts narrated in the complaint. It had been submitted that the complainant had not been successful in the draw of lots for the independent dwelling units and that the Board stopped the construction of independent houses as per the land use policy of the Chandigarh Administration. It is further averred that the complainant, in response to letter dated 29.11.91, opted for only three room flat vide his letter dated 3.12.91 and on this count, his name was not included in the draw of lots.

3. The District Forum, after perusal of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to the allotment of a dwelling unit against his application and directed the Board to allot the complainant a three room flat. It has further been ordered that since the complainant will be obliged to pay a very high price on account of inflation, it would be just that the Board should adjust in the price of the dwelling unit to be allotted not only the advance amount paid by the complainant, but also interest thereon ® 18% p.a. from the date of deposit to the date of delivery of possession of the dwelling unit. It was also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for harassment undergone by him alongwith Rs. 300/- as costs.

4. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been attempted on the ground that this complainant does not fall within the-definition of the Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act qua the appellant Chandigarh Housing Board and that the order of the District Forum is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It has been submitted that the complainant had filed a civil suit which was dismissed as withdrawn and the complainant is not entitled to file this complaint after having availed of a remedy in the Civil Court.

5. The complainant applied for a dwelling unit as far as back in the year 1976. This fact has not been denied by the appellant. ‘Housing is within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and has been settled once for all by the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v.M.K. Gupta, 1986-95 Consumer 278. The complainant did approach the Civil Court and it was after a reply was filed by the appellant, offering allotment of a house, that the said civil suit was withdrawn. Now the appellant cannot go back of its undertaking given before the Civil Court and if he had not fulfilled its promise made to the complainant while filing reply before the Civil Court, the right of the complainant to approach the District Forum for redressal of his grievance cannot be taken away.

6. Since the complainant applied to the respondent-Board for the allotment of a house as early as in the year 1976 and the respondent-Board had agreed to allot a dwelling unit when a suit was filed before the Civil Court by the complainant, non-inclusion of his name in the draw by the respondent-Board amounts to deficiency in service. The District Forum has rightly ordered allotment of a house to the complainant who has been a consumer with the Board since 1976. The grant of interest on a sum of Rs. 1,500/- deposited as earnest money in the year 1976 @ 18% p.a. till the actual allotment of the dwelling unit to the complainant cannot be said to be unjustified. Similarly, the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 300/- as cost of the complaint is quite reasonable.

7. In view of the above, we conclude that there is no ground for interfering with the orders of the District Forum, which are hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

8. Announced. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.