State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu ... vs K.Vasantha Boopathi @ K.V.Boopathi, ... on 13 September, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : HONBLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI PRESIDENT THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI JUDICIAL MEMBER COMMON ORDERF.A.NO.988/2011
& F.A.No.285/2012 (As against the order in CC.No.303/2006 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South) DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 F.A.NO.988/2011
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
2. The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, K.K.Nagar Division, Ashok Nagar Shopping Centre, Chennai 600 083.
-vs-
K.Vasantha Boopathi @ K.V.Boopathi, CC-22F, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110 064.
Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties : M/s.V.Yuvakumar, Counsel for Respondent / Complainant : M/s.K.P.Kiran Rao F.A.NO.285/2012 K.Vasantha Boopathi @ K.V.Boopathi, CC-22F, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110 064.
-2--vs-
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
2. The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, K.K.Nagar Division, Ashok Nagar Shopping Centre, Chennai 600 083.
Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties : M/s.K.P.Kiran Rao Counsel for Respondent / Complainant : M/s.V.Yuvakumar, The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellants / opposite parties prefer an appeal in F.A.No.988/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.303/2006, dated 12.4.2010, while the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.285/2012, for enhancement.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.988/2011
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
F.A.No.285/20122. The complainant is the appellant.
3. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties for a direction to refund a sum of Rs.67,615/- with interest at 12% from 19.8.2005 and to -3- pay Rs.10,000/- for incidental expenses incurred by the complainant and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs against the opposite parties for the alleged negligence and delay in executing the sale deed for the purchase of house from the opposite parties. The complainant was allotted MIG & HIG twin type of house at No.257 , Marai Malai Nagar on 22.9.1988 for a cost of Rs.1,54,000/- on hire purchase scheme and paid the initial amount of Rs.52,000/- on 15.12.1988 and paid entire cost in the year 1988-89. The opposite parties failed to issue sale deed inspite of repeated demand and thereafter the opposite parties demanded for further payment of Rs.56,684/- towards further interest on or before 30.12.2004. After got details of interest on 4.8.2005 they have raised the interest amount of Rs.67,615/- and directed to pay the sum in order to execute the sale deed and the complainant paid the same under protest and the sale deed was registered on 24.08.2005 after the delay of 16 years and hence the complaint has come forward with this complaint and sought for relief.
4. The opposite parties contended in their written version that the house allotted initially under the hire purchase scheme for 14 years and on the request of the complainant by letter dated 17.10.1988 for joint allottee with his wifes name and for outright basis it was ordered on 30.01.1989 with condition that to pay entire cost within 6 months and final cost was fixed and intimated on 12.10.1995 and the complainant even though paid the entire costs did not produced no objection certificate from his employer and thereby the sale deed was not executed. The -4- board fixed the balance costs and interest as Rs.28,420/- and capitalization cost of Rs.34,145/- and thereby as on 31.12.2004 a sum of Rs.56,684/- was demanded and thereby there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5000/- as costs. Without giving the relief for refund of Rs.67,615/- alleged to have been paid under protest.
6. Against this impugned order the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.288/2012 and the opposite parties filed the appeal in F.A.No.988/2011. The opposite parties contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking into the consideration of facts and circumstances of the case since the delay in executing the sale deed, because of non production of No objection certificate by the complainant and thereby the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint.
7. The complainant as appellant in F.A.No.285/2012 contended that he is entitled for refund of Rs.67615/- paid as excess amount and enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the complaint.
8. We have heard both sides arguments and perused the materials placed before us in this regard. It is the admitted case of both parties the complainant was allotted twin type house at Marai Malai Nagar initially on hire purchase basis during -5- the year 1988 and subsequently at the request of the complainant the same was converted to outright basis for which the complainant has paid the entire amount in the year 1988-89 itself and the possession was taken on 3.2.1989. It is also admitted by the opposite party that they demanded a further interest of Rs.28,420/- and the capitalization cost of Rs.34,145/- in all Rs.56,684/- on 31.12.2004 and he requested for the details of the same and the opposite party by its letter dated 4.8.2004 informed the complainant about the details of the interest of Rs.67,615/- the complainant has paid the amount in order to get the sale deed executed only after payment of that amount the sale deed was executed on 24.8.2005 after a delay of 16 years from the date of original allotment. The delay was said to have been caused due to non production of No objection Certificate by the employer, since the complainant being the employee of the Central Government and availed Housing loan through the Government which are proved through the Ex.A6, A16, 34 to
38. Ex.A34 is the No objection certificate dated 12.09.1996 in which the complainant was informed that the authority has no objection in receiving the sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board he should mortgage the property purchased to the President of India immediately after receiving the sale deed. Under Ex.A38 dated 14.09.2005, once again the very same type of No objection Certificate was issued by the employer of the complainant to receive the sale deed from the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to produce even a single document to disprove the complainants allegations that inspite of the NOC filed in the year 1996 itself and the amount paid by him in the year 1988-89 and thereafter -6- till 2005 only after the further demand for Rs.67,615/- was made, the delay was caused in executing the sale deed only because of the complainants attitude. Regarding the alleged excess payment of Rs.67,615/- towards interest payable by the complainant, the complainant failed to prove that it was paid only under protest in order to get the sale deed executed by the opposite parties. Even though the opposite party claimed certain amount by capitalization over the interest are admitted and the complainant being the officer as Principal Private Secretary in the Union Planning Commission and said to have been paid the amount under protest without having any proof to prove the same. We are not inclined to accept the contention and at the most he should have proceeded against the opposite parties through the Civil suit for collection of excess amount. Hence we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with the finding of the District Forum for the conclusion that there was a deficiency of service by the opposite party in executing the sale deed. Hence the appeal filed by the opposite parties in this regard is failed.
9. As far as the question of compensation is concerned the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing delay in executing the sale deed even the complainant has paid all the entire amount in the year 1988-89 itself and only after initiating the steps by the complainant in the year 2005 and on the basis of demand made by the opposite parties in the year 2004 after the lapse of 16 years entire amount made by the complainant was able to get the sale deed executed with all ordeal and harassment and thereby for the mental agony the -7- District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation is justifiable since the complainants prayer for refund of excess payment of Rs.67,615/- was not considered.
10. The appellant / complainant in F.A.No.285/12 claimed for the original claim for Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and incidental charge of Rs.10,000/- and refund of Rs.67,615/- towards excess payment.
11. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons has already discussed above in F.A.No.988/2011 we are of the view that the claim of the complainant in this appeal cannot be entertained since we have come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony is justifiable one and as far as the refund of Rs.67,615/-, since we have already concluded that he ought to have satisfied himself before the payment for the excess demand by the opposite parties for the purpose of executing the sale deed and failed to prove that he had paid the same under protest and he is estopped from the claim of the same by his own act and if at all he ought to have proceeded against the opposite parties through the Civil court and as far as the award for the cost of Rs.5000/- also cannot be considered as very low and since the complainant also is awarded for Rs.50,000/- as compensation the claim for Rs.10,000/- for incidental charges cannot be accepted. Hence, in all respects that the appeal filed by the appellant / complainant is to be dismissed by confirming the order of the district forum. Accordingly.
-8-In the result, the appeal filed by the complainant in F.A.No.285/2012 and the appeal filed by the opposite parties in F.A.No.988/2011 are hereby dismissed and the order of the District Forum in CC.No.303/2006 dated 12.4.2010 is hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs in these appeals.
The directions of the District Forum against the opposite parties shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.
A.K.ANNAMALAI R.REGUPATHI (J) MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX ; YES / NO VL/D;/PJM/ORDERS