The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) to pay ₹50,000 to a city resident as compensation for harassment and deficiency in services.
Bhartendu Sood, 66, a resident of Sector 45-A, had filed a complaint against CHB, in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum earlier this year.
However, on May 2, the forum dismissed the complaint.
Following this, Sood filed an appeal with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
In his complaint, Sood mentioned that he had applied to the CHB for transfer of ownership of a dwelling unit in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, on the basis of general power of attorney (GPA) executed in the year 1995 under normal category.
He paid ₹13,000 ( ₹10,000 for publication fee and ₹3,000 for processing fee) to the board.
On September 27, 2017, the CHB requested Sood to deposit a transfer fee of ₹1,99,944 and ground rent of ₹2,051 for transferring the dwelling unit in his name. Following this, Sood wrote a letter to CHB to provide details of the transfer fee but the housing board failed to furnish the details.
“ ₹1,99,944 is huge amount for a common man and it is the right of the applicant to demand details of the amount at any time. Moreover, it was the duty of the Chandigarh Housing Board to mention the details in the letter,” the commission observed.
{{/usCountry}}“ ₹1,99,944 is huge amount for a common man and it is the right of the applicant to demand details of the amount at any time. Moreover, it was the duty of the Chandigarh Housing Board to mention the details in the letter,” the commission observed.
{{/usCountry}}On December 19, 2017, a notice was received from the Chandigarh administration wherein instructions were issued to the board to discontinue all kinds of transfer on the basis of general power of attorney (GPA) and the board discontinued the scheme.“It was the primary duty of the CHB to inform the applicant about the new development especially when his application was pending for a long period, but after the said development, the respondent did not return documents of the appellant such as GPA and after ten months when the appellant sent a notice to the board, the same was returned,” the commission observed.
Observing that this act of the Chandigarh Housing Board amounted to ‘deficiency in service’ on its part and the appellant was entitled for some compensation, the commission allowed the appeal.