State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Executive Engineer And ... vs R. Saraswathi, W/O. Ramaswami, 78-C, ... on 31 December, 2013
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K. ANNAMALAI, M.A.M.L.,M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, B.Sc, Member
F.A.No.70/2012
(Against the order in C.C.No. 01/2006, dated 04.12.2007 on the file of DCDRF,
Dindigul)
TUESDAY, 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2013.
The Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Madurai. Appellant/Opposite Party
Vs
R. Saraswathi,
W/o. Ramaswami,
78-C, Housing Board Colony,
Ayyakudi-Post,
Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party: Mr.V. Yuvakumar, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant: Mr.G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 17.12.2013 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant applied to the opposite party for allotment of house under SMT Scheme, Palani for which a sum of Rs.83,000/- as initial deposit was 2 requested to be paid and the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- only on 22.03.2001 and she was allotted a house No.B-96 at Phase II of SMT Scheme, Palani at a cost of Rs.2,38,100/- as per the order dated 22.02.2001 and subsequently on 08.05.2001, the complainant sent an application for the cancellation of allotment since she was not satisfied with the allotment and thereby the opposite party has not passed any order and the complainant gave another application and thereafter an order on 01.10.2002 was passed for canceling the allotment and she was not refunded the amount paid and subsequently the opposite party sent a notice demanding for further payment on 28.10.2002 and on 10.03.2003 with various amounts which made the complainant to file a consumer complaint for refund of Rs.60,000/- with 12% interest from 22.03.2001 and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs.
3. The opposite party denied the allegations by contending that the cancellation was made as per section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and no proceedings could be initiated except with 60 days notice and as per the terms and conditions for the cancellation of allotment from the date of allotment till cancellation interest for the payments to be paid and thereby no amount is payable to the complainant and only the complainant has to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,501/- and no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum after an enquiry based on both sides materials allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to refund a sum of 3 Rs.60,000/- with 12% interest from the date of deposit till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party has come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking into consideration of all the charges and penal interest for cancellation of allotment payable by the complainant and the claim was made 17 months after the allotment and thereby the complaint has to be dismissed.
6. Per contra, the respondent/complainant contended that the complainant had applied for cancellation as soon as the allotment was made and the delay was caused only by the opposite parties and only after the filling of 2nd application alone in the month of August 2002, the cancellation was made on 01.10.2002 stating that no amount was refundable except to payment payable by the complainant himself.
7. We have heard both sides' arguments and carefully considered the contention and submissions made in this regard. It is not in dispute that the complainant had paid Rs.60,000/- on 22.03.2001 towards the allotment of house and subsequently sent a letter for cancellation of the same on 08.05.2001 within two months from the date of allotment letter and the cancellation order came to be passed only on 01.10.2002 on the 2nd application by the complainant. In the meanwhile, the opposite parties demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,501/- after adjusting the advance amount of Rs.60,000/- under Ex A9 dated 10.03.2003. When the allotment was made, the initial amount paid itself was 4 only for Rs.60,000/- paid on 22.03.2001, under Ex A9 dated 10.03.2003 nearly after two years they have demanded another sum of Rs.62,501/- towards interest and after adjusting the earlier payment of Rs.60,000/- as payable by the complainant even without any specific allotment of the house physically and without receiving any further payment it appears that the opposite party calculated interest and other charges for the entire total costs of the house for Rs.2,38,100/- which is unsustainable and in those circumstances, it is clear that the complainant is entitled for the refund of allotment amount already paid of course subject to terms and conditions of the Housing Board relating to the cancellation of allotment and for this purpose, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rate of interest is payable for the same is 15.75% from the date of allotment as on 22.03.2001 till the letter of cancellation of allotment sent to the complainant on 01.10.2002. The cancellation was made on 01.10.2002. The opposite parties ought to have cancelled the allotment as early as possible when they received the letter of cancellation from the complainant on 08.05.2001 itself under Ex A4, instead of waiting for the same till 01.10.2002. The opposite parties have not proved that the delay of cancellation was because of the complainant alone. In those circumstances, at the most, they can collect interest for the amount only for the period from 22.03.2001 to 08.05.2001 nearly for 1 ½ months alone. It should be worked out for the total initial amount payable of Rs.83,000/- only which could be directed to be paid as initial amount which comes out Rs.83,000 x 15.75 /12 x 1 ½ =Rs. 1643.40 NP and this amount 5 alone could be deducted from initial payment of Rs.60,000/- paid by the complainant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the complainant claims 12% interest from the amount already paid we are of the view that the interest for the cancellation of allotment for the above said amount alone could be deducted towards the refund of the amount which comes to Rs.58,356.60 NP after deduction and thereby the complainant is entitled for the balance of Rs.58,356.60 NP and accordingly to that extent alone, we have to modify the order of the District Forum by allowing the appeal. As far as the compensation is concerned the District Forum has not awarded any compensation except for the costs which is for Rs.5000/- which is also could be reduced to Rs.3000/- by considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum as follows:
1) The District Forum order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of deposit till the date of realization with costs of Rs.5000/- is hereby set aside,
2) In stead, the opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.60,000/- -Rs.1643.40 = Rs.58,356.60 NP only with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cancellation order dated 01.10.2002 till the date of realization.
3) The opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs.6
4) No order as to costs in this appeal.
All the directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.
S. SAMBANDAM, A.K. ANNAMALAI, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2013/Dec