State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thanjavur 613 ... vs T. Govindarajan, on 30 October, 2009
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT THIRU Pon. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I A.P. NO.568/2002 [Against order in C.C.No.162/2000 on the file of the DCDRF, Thanjavur] DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 1.
The Executive Engineer and | Administrative Officer, | New Thanjavur Housing Unit, | Appellants/Opposite Parties Tamil Nadu Housing Board | New Housing Unit Colony, | Thanjavur 613 005. | |
2. The Chairman, | Tamil Nadu Housing Board, | Nandanam,Chennai 600 035. | Vs. T. Govindarajan, | 37-A, Sivakkollai, | Respondent/Complainant Nainakuppam Post, | Pattukkottai, herein represented by | Secretary, Consumer Protection Council, | No.15, Mayil Palayam, | Pattukkottai. | The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants /opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to return the sale deed in respect of LIG.339 alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- and with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to return sale deed and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.500/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.11.01.2001 in CC No.162/2000.
This appeal petition coming before us for hearing finally on 09.10.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel of the Appellant, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellants /Opposite parties: Mr.S.Rajakumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant : M/s.S.Devika & T.Mohan, Advocates HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties, in COP.162/200 on the file of District Consumer Disptues Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, having suffered an adverse order, challenges the same before this Commission, as appellants.
2. The complainant/respondent approached the District Forum, Thanjavur, seeking direction against the opposite parties/appellants to execute the sale deed in respect of LIG House No.339 as well for the compensation of Rs.10,000/- alleging interalia that despite he had paid the original cost as well as the enhanced cost for the property, they have failed to hand over the sale deed, in spite of number of representation and issuance of notice whereas they have claimed after 18 years, an additional sum of Rs.34,436/- which they are not entitled to claim and this view they have committed deficiency in service and therefore should be directed to hand over the sale deed as well for compensation as claimed.
3. The opposite parties, in their Written Version, admitting the allotment of the house in favour of the complainant, as well the entire costs paid by him inter alia, would contend that the cost fixed, amount collected, are only tentative costs, that the owners of the lands acquired claiming additional compensation has not only filed LAOPs, but also filed original suit which were allowed, that pursuant to the same, final cost for the acquired land including land allotted to the complainant was fixed, adding improvement cost and on that basis a direction has been given to the complainant, through communications, reminding him also to pay a sum of Rs.34,436/- on or before 30.06.99, for which, there was no compliance and in this view accusing the opposite parties, as if they have committed deficiency in service, warranting direction and compensation are untenable, thereby, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The lower Forum marking certain documents as well as perusing the affidavits filed on eitherside, hearing the arguments, came to the conclusion that though the opposite parties have claimed the enhanced amount for the plot allotted to the complainant, the same was not proved by producing substantial evidence, in fact the reasons for claiming additional cost also not informed to the complainant and that the acts of the opposite parties having received the amount as originally demand and failing in their duty to execute the sale deed or handing over the sale deed would amount to deficiency in service. Taking this view, as per the order dated 11.01.2001, a direction has been issued to hand over the sale deed, as well to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damage, which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions, other materials as well as the order of the District Forum, placed before us.
6. The Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the cost originally fixed was a tentative in nature and it is also agreed by the complainant by an undertaking, to pay the enhanced final cost, if any as well under the lease cum sale agreement entered into between the appellants and respondent and therefore taking advantage of tentative cost, the complainant cannot evade the additional cost claimed, since the demand and additional cost occurred due to the escalation in compensation for the acquired property, due to orders passed by the Judicial Forums in the land acquisition cases. Therefore, according to him, final cost arrived at, after disposal of the cases, for the land allotted to the complainant, calculating interest also comes to Rs.34,436/- as on 21.06.99 which was demanded under Ex.A9 and having failed to pay the said sum, he is not entitled to take the sale deed. On the above basis, it was argued that the trial Forum has committed an error, to hand over the sale deed without payment which should be set aside.
7. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the so called lease cum sale agreement said to have been executed by the complainant has not been produced in spite of notice and therefore based upon that, the opposite parties are not entitled to demand any additional costs. It is the further submission on behalf of the complainant, that no material has been placed before the Fora, indicating that the land allotted or whether the plot allotted to the complainant, was subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings, for additional compensation and therefore in the absence of any such proof, claiming additional cost is untenable. Therefore, we have to see whether the complainant had paid the amount as originally demanded and whether the opposite parties are entitled to claim additional cost either on the basis of the undertaking given by the complainant or on the basis of lease cum sale agreement.
8. Admittedly, for the complainant who is a senior citizen, retired on 31.01.1997, a LIG house was allotted, which he took possession on 28.07.83 and the House number is
339. Under the agreement, amount should be paid on installment basis. The complainant though paid some installments, thought it fit to pay the entire amount and in this way, obtaining a loan from the State Bank of India, paid the entire amount as originally fixed. The Department, after the receipt of the amount, felt the complainant had paid excess amount and the same was also returned. Thereafter, elsewhere in 1986 or 1987, a demand was made to pay additional cost of Rs.1,530/- and the same was also paid on 7.5.87. Thus, as agreed originally, the entire cost was paid and therefore as of right, the complainant is entitled to get the sale deed, from the opposite parties. Unable to get the same, despite repeated requests, because of the reason, the opposite parties once again demanded additional cost, which is fixed at Rs.34,436/- as seen from the calculation filed, as well as, as seen from the letter Ex.A9. The complainant aggrieved by the same, questioned the correctness of the sum and attributing the deficiency in service, being a public body, approached the Consumer Forum, received a favorable order, which is impugned before us as said above.
9. As rightly claimed by the learned counsel for the complainant, if the opposite parties have to insist an additional cost, as condition to give the sale deed, they should establish that the additional cost was necessitated, because of some external reasons, or they were compelled by the Court proceedings to claim additional cost, from the allottees who had the benefit of acquisition proceedings in the sense having received the plot as well as the house built therein, by the opposite parties. True, anticipating this kind of enhancement, an undertaking also been appears to have been obtained, on 24.4.85 as seen from Ex.B1.
As said above, lease-cum-sale-agreement has not been produced. Even in the absence of that lease-cum-sale-agreement, since Ex.B1 is not very much challenged before us, the complainant is bound to pay the additional cost, if any, resulting the enhancement of the price by the land acquisition proceedings for the acquired and property allotted to the complainant. The lower Forum very much commented the non-production of material evidence, namely the land acquisition proceedings orders etc., To over come that comment, some typeset of papers were produced before us. As seen from the typeset, some orders passed by the Sub-Judge, Thanjavur are available and they relate to between some parties and land acquisition officer, Thanjavur. Generally, the beneficiary for whom the lands were acquired also would be the parties, but we are unable to see that the opposite parties as parties in the land acquisition proceedings order. Either in the orders passed by the Sub Court or in the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court or in the Government Order issued by the Government, we are unable to see the survey number, in which the property allotted to the complainant is situated or to indicate that the property allotted to the complainant, was the subject matter of the acquisition, resulting after fixing the tentative cost, enhancement of the cost, warranting the demand of additional cost from the beneficiaries namely the allottees. Unless the documents are correlated with the survey number, with the property allotted to the complainant, we are unable to say, the opposite parties are justified in demanding additional cost, from the complainant who was allotted the property, elsewhere in 1983, after more than 15 years.
10. Ex.B2 is the working sheet produced by the opposite parties, to prove how the additional cost or enhanced price is fixed. Here also, we do not find any particulars, about the enhancement of compensation payable or paid to the land owner pursuant to the LAOPs or pursuant to original suits etc., What was the price fixed originally, how it was enhanced and under what circumstances, the opposite parties compelled or pressurized to reverse the tentative cost, and how they are entitled to claim the interest at the rate of 15% are not at all stated, in the working sheet. Based upon this working sheet, it seems Ex.A9 was issued on 21.06.99, as if the complainant is liable to pay Rs.34,436/-. In this notice, it is stated, because of the pendency of the land acquisition cases in the High Court, they are unable to finalize the price for the NH Scheme Land, Thanjavur. But due to the pressure given by the parties, pressing for sale deed, Board has approved a final cost, based on the highest compensation demanded by the ex-land owner i.e. at Rs.31,900/- per ground, for which, also no documents is produced. Thus, it is seen, the final cost now fixed is not based upon the final decision rendered by any Court, and therefore, in our considered opinion, the fixation of final price under Ex.A9 or under the written submission appears to be arbitrary, not based upon any reason, and in this view, we conclude, insisting that payment, refusal to hand over the sale deed, having collected the original price fixed, certainly would amount to deficiency in service as held by the lower Forum, in which, we are unable to find any error, compelling us to interfere. Therefore, the documents now produced by way of additional typeset papers also failed to advance the case of the opposite parties. An old man, a retired government servant, having paid the amount more than two decades ago, is unable to get the sale deed as held by the lower Forum, because of the deficiency in service, for which, there should be a direction and the direction issued by the lower Forum, gets the approval of us also. Thus analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that the opposite parties have failed to prove the justification, in demanding the additional cost, we conclude the original cost should prevail, which was paid and the result should be, there should be a direction to hand over the sale deed.
10. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum in COP.162/2000. There will be no order as to cost in the appeal.
PON GUNASEKARAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/Mtj/Housing Board