State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board And ... vs Smt Lalitha W/O Lalta Prasad on 18 April, 2012
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No 522 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.No.636 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD Between 1. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Gruhakalpa, MJ Road, Nampally Hyderabad-001 2. The Executive Engineer (Housing) Western Division, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-072 Appellants/opposite parties A N D Smt Lalitha W/o Lalta Prasad Aged about 47 yrs, Occ: LIC Agent R/o H.No.21-7-468, Shakkarkota, Charkaman, Hyderabad-002, rep. by her Special Power of Attorney Holder and husband Lalta Prasad Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri D.Ranganath Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Sri C.Ramprasad QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) ***
1. The opposite party is the appellant. The appellant invited applications by issuing notification dated 10.11.2008 for allotment of ready built single bed room tenements at Kukatpally locality of Hyderabad city. Entire cost of the flat excluding the EMD has to be paid within 60 days from the date of allotment letter without interest or with interest @18% p.a. from 61 to 90 days from the date of allotment letter, or with interest @24%p.a. from 91 to 120 days. If the amount is not paid within 120 days from date of allotment letter, the allotment would be automatically cancelled duly forfeiting the amount already paid.
2. The respondent submitted application for ready to occupy single bedroom tenement by paying `24,000/- towards earnest money and Rs.1000/- towards deposit for service charges on 3.12.2008. Balance sale consideration of `9,86,000/- plus `1,200/- towards cost of the plan and conveyance charges was payable at the time of allotment by draw of lots. The respondent was allotted plot no.39/109 and allotment letter dated 17.2.2009 was issued in her favour by the appellant and she was requested to pay balance sale consideration as per schedule.
3. The respondent requested the second appellant on 7.3.2009 to issue no objection certificate for the purpose of obtaining housing loan from the bank for payment of balance sale consideration. The second appellant issued no objection certificate on 13.4.2009 i.e., three days before the last date for payment of balance sale consideration. The respondent submitted no objection certificate to the bank and the bank refused to sanction the loan within three days. Other applicants who applied for sanction of loan elsewhere were sanctioned the loan amount. The appellant cancelled the allotment of the flat on 5.5.2009 and refused to refund EMD amount of `24,000/-.
4. The appellants contested the claim on the premise that the respondent applied for issuing of no objection letter for raising loan with a scheduled bank on 7.3.2009 i.e., after lapse of 18 days from the date of allotment orders. The respondent had not requested for refund of the EMD. The no objection certificate was made ready by 12.3.2009 and the respondent received it on 13.4.2009 i.e., after lapse of one month. The respondent by her letter dated 15.4.2009 requested for refund of the EMI amount for the reason that the bank has refused to sanction the housing loan. The appellants through letter dated 5.5.2009 informed the appellant about the cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the EMD amount.
5. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the appellants, the first appellant filed his affidavit and no documents.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law?
7. There is no much dispute about the respondent applying for allotment of flat and making payment of `24,000/- towards earnest money and `1000/- towards service charges to the appellant and allotment of the flat bearing NO.39/109 by the appellants on 16.2.2009. The respondent contends that on 7.3.2009 she requested for issue of no objection certificate and the appellants issued the certificate 3 days before the stipulated date for final payment of the amount and by negligent attitude of the appellants she could not get sanction for the loan amount from the bank.
8. The appellants contend that they made ready no objection certificate on 12.3.2009. The respondent did not turn up to receive the certificate. The allotment letter dated 16.2.2009 contains schedule of payment of the sale consideration as under:
9. Schedule of payment and rate of interest charged on delayed payments:
1) Within 60 days from the date of Allotment Letter No interest
2) From 61 to 90 days from the dateg of Allotment Letter 18% per annum
3) From 91 to 120 days from the date of allotment letter 24% per annum If the allottee fails to pay the total balance cost of flat within (120) days, from the date of allotment letter, the allotment of the flat will automatically be cancelled duly forfeiting the amounts already paid, without entertaining any representations in the matter. No further extension of time beyond prescribed period will be granted under any circumstances and waiting list candidate will be given allotment in the vacancy.
If the allottee desires to obtain the loan from any Bank/Financial Institutions, No objection letter and Tripartite Agreement will be given. If the allottee obtains loan from any agency the sale deed will be forwarded to the concerned Bank after registration.
10. The District Forum has observed how the delay in issuing the NOC occurred by the negligence of the appellants (Para 9 and 10 of the order).
Exhibit A7 is the letter dated 7.3.2009 from the complainant requesting the opposite party no.2 to issue NOC, for obtaining bank loan. The opposite party contended that the complainant had taken 18 days for applying for the issue of NOC. No doubt, the complainant had taken 18 days for applying NOC but still she had 5 weeks time to get the bank loan sanctioned. Hence we cannot find fault with the complainant for having taken 18 days time for applying for NOC. The complainant further alleged that in spite of her making several visits to opposite party office, they kept the matter in abeyance and did not issue NOC until 13-4-2009. The opposite parties found fault with the complainant for not having filed any letter from any bank refusing housing loan to the complainant. The complainant stated that the bank had refused to sanction the loan as there was very short time and the other applicants who had applied earlier had obtained the loans. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had received the NOC on 13-4-2009 though it was ready by 12-3-2009 itself, which means that the NOC was issued on 13-4-2009 only. Whatsoever may be the reason, it goes without saying that there was very little time for the complainant to obtain housing loan after receipt of the NOC. As a matter of fact it would not be possible for any ordinary person to get a loan of Rs.9,86,000/- within 3 days from a bank. As per clause 8 of the allotment letter, the opposite parties duty bound to issue no objection letter which they discharge belatedly.
Exhibit 8 is the letter dated 15.4.2009 from the complainant addressed to opposite party in which she narrated how the delay in issuing the NOC had come in her way of in getting the housing loan sanctioned and requested for refund of her EMD of Rs.24,000/-
11. The District Forum has observed that clause 5 of the allotment letter cannot be made applicable for forfeiture of the EMD since the appellants were negligent in issuing the NOC belatedly. The District Forum has opined that in case of the allotment was cancelled and the appellants had no other intention to gain profit, there should have allotted the plot to candidate in the waiting list. The learned counsel for the appellant could not show as to how the negligence on the part of the appellants in issuing NOC could not be held as infirmity in the findings recorded by the District Forum.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions:
1.
HUDA Vs Nirmala Devi reported in III (2010) CPJ 200 (NC)
2. Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs Jagdish Chander Verma reported in IV (2010) CPJ 39 (NC)
13. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the District Forum in regard to the belated issuing of NOC whereby the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to obtain sanction of loan from a scheduled bank. The appeal as such is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.18.04.2012 KMK*