State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By ... vs . Balachandran, Erode 638 011. on 30 July, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER I Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.611/2006 [Against order in O.P.76/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Erode] DATED THIS THE 30h DAY OF JULY 2010 The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, | Appellant/Opposite Party rep. by Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, | Erode Housing Unit, | Surampatti, 4 Road, | Erode 638 009. | Vs. P. Balachandran, | Respondent/complainant S/o. K.P. Pichhumani, | M-139, Housing Board Colony, | Nasiyanoor Scheme, | Erode 638 011. | The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party declaring the demand of Rs.5,260/- by the opposite party from the complainant, to pay Rs.45,000/- towards the mental agony and suffering to the complainant with cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.04.2006 in O.P.76/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing on 20.07.2010, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant, this commission made the following order: Counsel for the Appellant /OP : Mr.V.Yuvakumar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respt/Complainant : Mr.Asokan, Advocate. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.
The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant had entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement with the opposite party for the purchase of MIG House on 25.10.1990, for a sum of Rs.1,51,400/-. Accordingly, the entire costs of MIG building has been paid. Thereafter, the opposite party communicated to the complainant, revising the price as Rs.1,65,700/-, claiming the balance amount of Rs.14,300/-, for which, a letter was written by the complainant, seeking waiver of interest, permitting to pay the said amount, in 6 installments, which was later paid. But having kept silent till 2005, a claim was made to the extent of Rs.5,260/- being the interest for the belated payment of Rs.14,300/-, which should be construed as unfair trade practice, illegal, against principle of natural justice. Hence, the Demand dated 3.10.2005 under Letter No.R10/11971/88 should be declared as illegal, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- for the deficiency caused, resulting mental agony and suffering. Thus, the claim.
3. Defence as under:-
The demand for the payment of interest is only for the differential tentative cost of Rs.14,300/-, which the complainant has paid accordingly to his own convenience, failing to pay within 30 days as demanded, wherein, it is informed, that the belated payment would attract interest.
Even now, because of the pendency of land acquisition proceedings, final land cost has not been arrived. There is no question of limitation since the complainant has to pay the interest, even as per the terms and conditions in the agreement, which was demanded, and there is no question of deficiency in service also.
The complaint itself is not maintainable, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Based upon the pleadings, as well as assessing 35 documents submitted on behalf of the complainant, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that it cannot accept the prayer of the complainant, since no exception is available for the payment interest, thereby, negatived the first prayer. But, at the same time, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that there was unfair trade practice, for which, materials are available. Thus concluding, an order came to be slapped against the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- with cost of Rs.2,000/- as per the order dated 10.04.2006, which is under challenge.
5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the District Forum has committed an error, that too against laws in issuing a direction to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-, as if, the opposite party practiced unfair trade practice, committed deficiency in service; cannot be easily brush aside since we find inconsistence finding in the order itself, thereby, making the subsequent direction against its own finding, making it illegal also.
7. Based upon Ex.A1 / Lease cum Sale Agreement, the complainant became the owner of MIG house, constructed and sold by the opposite party, though even now, final cost has not been finalized because of the pendency of land acquisition proceedings. The original tentative cost was fixed at Rs.1,51,400/-, not in dispute, which was also paid by the complainant. Thereafter, as seen from Ex.A3, a communication emanated from the Executive Engineer, Erode Housing Unit, enhancing the tentative firm cost at Rs.1,65,600/-. Deducting the amount already paid the balance was Rs.14,300/- which was demanded under Ex.A3, not in dispute. Ex.A3 is specific, in requesting the complainant to pay its amount of Rs.14,300/- within 30 days, from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which, the prevailing rate of interest will be charged and collected for the delayed payment.
8. The complainant probably unable to pay the entire amount in lump sum, as seen from Ex.A4, requested the appropriate authority to permit him, to pay the amount in six installments, which has not elicited any consent, that too, waiving the interest, as seen from the records, despite further communication was sent, by the complainant under Ex.A4. Without any specific order, waiving the interest or otherwise, it seems, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.14,300/- in 7 installments, as listed in the complaint, which is also not seriously challenged. The Housing Board which collected the amount on installment basis, not insisted to pay the interest then and there, and finally it seems on 3.10.2005, as evidenced by Ex.A21, a communication was sent to the complainant, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.5,260/- towards principal interest on or before October 2005, which is challenged in the complaint, as seen from the first prayer. Such a declaratory degree is not contemplated under Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum considering the liability of the complainant to pay interest, as well the demand made by the opposite party, was as per the terms and conditions of the Board, has come to the conclusion, as seen from the end of Para 6, that no exemption would be granted for the complainant, from paying interest. This finding and negativing of the first prayer, based upon this finding, has not been challenged by the complainant and therefore, we need not strain ourselves, to find out the correctness of this finding, the further fact being it is also not challenged before us or otherwise also.
9. The District Forum unfortunately has come to the conclusion, that the opposite party has practiced unfair trade, thereby, committed deficiency in service, for which, we do not find any materials, though the District Forum would state, that there are materials not relying upon. Admittedly, based upon Ex.A1, fixing tentative cost, transaction commenced. Whenever the complainant demanded for final settlement, he was informed by the authority concerned, in view of the land acquisition proceedings pending, pursuant to the acquisition, it is not possible for them to finalize the cost and cost will be finalized as and when the land acquisition cases came to an end, which cannot be termed, as unfair trade practice. For the benefit of the people, whether it is Government Servant or otherwise, land acquired from third parties, when dispute was raised regarding the market value, the matter is taken to the Court, where there are unavoidable delay, for that, unfair trade practice cannot be affixed upon the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, since they have no individual interest either in the acquisition or in the allotment of the house to the beneficiaries. The District Forum, without analyzing the materials and the attending circumstances, abruptly reached a conclusion, as if, the opposite party committed unfair trade, resulting deficiency, in which finding, we are unable to agree, and the consequential result would be, award of compensation, on that ground should go, for which, the appeal deserves acceptance.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum in OP.76/2005, dt.10.04.2006 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost throughout.
10. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant / opposite party, duly discharged.
S. SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/mtj/Housing Board/fm