State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajendiran vs The Executive Engineer & ... on 17 August, 2023
1
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT
THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER
F.A. No. 66 of 2016
(Against the order passed in C.C. No.35 of 2012 dated 29.02.2016 on
the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Villupuram).
Thursday, the 17th day of August 2023
Rajendiran
S/o. Narayanasamy
MIG -1, House No.B-110
TNHB Colony
Keelaperumpakkam
Villupuram. .. Appellant/
Complainant
- Vs -
1. The Executive Engineer &
Administrative Officer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Villupuram.
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
493, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai. .. Respondents/
Opposite parties
2
Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s.R. Venkata Varathan
Counsel for the Respondents/
Opposite Parties : M/s.M.R.Sheik Abdul Rahim
This appeal has come before us for final hearing today,
17.08.2023 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the
appellant and the counsel for the respondents and on perusing
the material records, this Commission made the following :-
ORDER
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram in C.C.No.35 of 2012 dated 29.02.2016, this appeal has been filed by the complainant/ appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is working as a Lab Assistant in the Government Arts College, Villupuram. The complainant had applied for MIG-I house and his Application Number is 10855. The details of the type, design, plinth area, tentative selling price and other particulars were given to the 3 complainant by the opposite party. The 1st opposite party vide his Lr.No.R2/1510/98 dated 15.05.1998 informed the complainant that he had been allotted House No.B-110 under MIG-I type, measuring 112.50 sq.mts with construction area of 40.30 sq.mts., and the tentative cost is Rs.3,79,600/-. The opposite party vide letter dated 29.09.1998 asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5119/- and Rs.60/- and receive the key of the said house. The complainant had paid the said amount and obtained the key of the house and was put in possession and enjoyment of the allotted House No.B-110 MIG-I type. But, the opposite party did not register the house in favour of the complainant and was dodging to register the sale deed stating that a LAOP case is pending for disposal in respect of the land before the reference court. In this regard, the complainant made several requests to the opposite party but his request was not considered. On 11.12.2007 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant asking him to pay the balance amount of Rs.24,971/-, as per the enclosed working sheet, which reads as Rs.3,46,500 + 71,399 + 4,980 = Rs.4,22,897 - Rs.3,97,908 (paid by the complainant). Hence the balance amount to be paid by the complainant is Rs.24,971/-. The said calculation of the opposite party is wrong 4 and baseless. Again, on 07.03.2011 the opposite party sent a letter stating that final rate for the house allotted to the complainant has been fixed and that the complainant had to pay a the balance amount of Rs.5,094/- before 13.06.2011. However, when the complainant went to pay the said amount, the opposite party had refused to receive it. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive the letter dated 25.05.2011 from the opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.1,18,282/- without any valid reason. As per the letter, the calculation made by the opposite party is as follows:-
Tentative cost .. Rs. 3,79,600
Regular interest .. Rs. 51,711
Difference in land cost .. Rs. 70,118
Interest .. Rs. 62,781
Maintenance charge .. Rs. 4,980
----------------
Total .. Rs. 5,69,190
Amount Paid .. Rs. 4,50,908
----------------
Balance payable by the
Complainant .. Rs. 1,18,282
-----------------
But, the complainant denies the calculation made by the opposite party as false and incorrect. The complainant has made the following payments to the opposite parties:-
5
08.04.1996 .. Rs. 3,000 17.08.1998 .. Rs. 50,000 05.10.1998 .. Rs. 20,080 18.08.1999 .. Rs. 31,850 13.09.2000 .. Rs. 3,41,658 Mc .. Rs. 4,320
----------------
Total .. Rs. 4,50,908
-----------------
Thus, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,50,908/- on 13.09.2000 itself. Hence, the interest calculated by the opposite party is not correct. In fact the opposite party had registered the sale deed in favour of other allottees and they have not been charged with any interest and the cost of the site and construction had been reduced. But only in the case of the complainant, the opposite party demands higher rate and interest, which is not legally sustainable. In fact, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.15,277/- in excess, as per the calculation sheet of the opposite party. Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant had filed the complaint seeking the following directions to the opposite parties:-
a) To register the sale deed in favour of the complainant; 6
b) To pay a sum of Rs.15,277/- being the excess amount collected by them;
c) To pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony and other hardships caused to the complainant; and
d) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties filing a written version stating that it has been clearly explained to the complainant in the allotment letter dated 15.05.1998 sent by them, that it was only a tentative amount, which is yet to be finalised. In the 9th point of the said letter, it has been clearly explained that the amount would be finalised on the disposal of the LAOP proceedings before the Reference Court. When the 1st opposite party sent the letter dated 29.09.1998 informing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5119/- and Rs.60/- and to obtain the key of the said house, the complainant merely gave an acknowledgement letter dated 29.10.1998 but did not make any payment on that date. Based on the acknowledgement letter, the opposite parties handed over the key of the house to the complainant. As per the allotment order dated 15.05.1998, 7 condition No.4, the complainant has been informed to remit the initial deposit amount of Rs.1,29,900/- within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order. But the complainant had approached the opposite parties and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 17.08.1998 and a sum of Rs.20,080/- on 05.10.1998. Hence the interest calculation worked out by the opposite parties is correct. In the letter dated 07.03.2011 the opposite party had specifically stated that as on 31.03.2011 the balance amount payable by the complainant is Rs.5,094/-, which have to be paid before 13.06.2011. When the complainant went to pay the said amount, the opposite party had refused to receive the same, since the complainant approached the opposite parties only after the offer period was over. The appellant/ complainant has not remitted the interest on initial deposit and monthly instalments properly and regularly, from the date of allotment order till the date of sanction of House Building Advance. The calculations made by the opposite party are legally sustainable and in accordance with the contract entered with the complainant. As per the Abstract dated 03.10.2012, the outstanding amount due and payable by the complainant was Rs.1,75,131/-. The complainant has paid only Rs.4,46,588/- and not Rs.4,50,908/-. The appellant/ complainant 8 has not regularly remitted the amount as per the allotment order and has not followed the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.174 (Housing & Urban Development Department) dated 07.02.1991. It is clearly mentioned in condition No.9 of the allotment order that the final cost could be arrived only after the land cost is finalised, after disposal of the compensation cases before the Civil Court. The appellant/complainant being a government servant, knowing fully well about the facts and rules, is wantonly refusing to settle the payment. All the other allottees have accepted and remitted the excess cost and are getting their sale deeds except the appellant/ complaint. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, both the parties have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant 10 documents have been marked as Exhibits A1 to A10 and 15 documents were filed on the side of the opposite parties and were marked as Exhibits B1 and B15.
9
5. After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the District Forum had observed that it is very clear from the records that the final land cost should have been paid by the complainant immediately on demand. But, in this case the complainant had wantonly refused to pay the final land cost, as proved. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum had come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. Hence, the District Forum directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.70,118/- towards final land cost and interest from the date of disposal of LAOP to the opposite party, within one month from the date of the order and directed the opposite parties to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant on receipt of the said amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.
6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties and perused the entire material available on records. 10
7. The grievance of the appellant/complainant is only against the direction given by the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs.70,118/- towards final land cost with interest from the date of disposal of LAOP to the opposite party within one month from the date of the order. Further, it is the submission of the counsel for the appellant/ complainant that the calculation made by the respondents/ opposite parties, is patently wrong. Therefore, the District Forum ought not to have directed the complainant to pay Rs.70,118/- towards final land cost with interest from the date of disposal of LAOP to the opposite party. The respondents/ opposite parties have not established their case that the appellant/ complainant has not made the payments within the stipulated period to charge interest and penal interest.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to consider the controversy that has been raised by the appellant/complainant, with regard to fixation of price of the houses. As the Housing Board does not have land of its own and the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, by paying 11 compensation as determined in accordance with the provisions of law, the allotment order should have been issued clearly intimating that the price is tentative. In the allotment order dated 15.05.1998 it has been clearly mentioned that the price of the house is tentative. After agreeing to the said clause, the complainant has booked the house and taken possession. Now, he cannot go behind the concluded contract between the parties. In our considered opinion, having come to a reasonable conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation, the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint in toto. Instead the District Forum had directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.70,118/- towards final land cost with interest from the date of disposal of LAOP to the opposite party within one month from the date of the order. We do not find any merit in this appeal to pass an order in favour of the complainant. However, the complainant is granted liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal 12 Forum, Villupuram in C.C.No.35 of 2012 dated 29.02.2016 is confirmed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court, subject to limitation. No order as to costs.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Index : Yes/ No
AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August /2023