NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 525 OF 1995 (From the order dated 25.8.95 in O.P. No. 438/92 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) Allam Aslam Appellant Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER. Housing allotment letter issued to the complainant indicating tentative price complainant applying to the Housing Board for certificates to mortgage the flat in the name of his employer- the Madras Port Trust certificates granted complainant got loan from his G.P. Fund and made payment to the Housing Board for balance sought one months time no reply received. - No construction at the site where flat allotted again letter to Housing Board for inspection no response from Housing Board complainant received notice cancelling the allotment on the ground that full price not paid protest lodged by the complainant, yet no reply complaint for deficiency in service. -State Commission holding that it was not required of the Housing Board to send reply- Held approach of the State Commission was wrong by the time complaint decided no flat available action of the Housing Board to give certificates when there was no flat and on that basis flat mortgaged was not proper meanwhile amount paid by the complainant was refunded with 8% interest. -National Commission allowing the appeal and directing payment of interest @ 18% per annum. For the appellant : In person For the respondents : Mr. T.S. Shanthi, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Ramalingam, Advocate. O R D E R
DATED THE 8th January , 2003.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
J.(PRESIDENT)
It is the complainant
who is in appeal before us. He is
aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing his complaint wherein he had alleged deficiency of service on the
part of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Housing Board).
Complainant read an
advertisement in the daily Hindu in
July 1991 which advertisement was given by
the Housing Board. The
advertisement was regarding construction of flats on invitation of
applications for allotment.
Complainant, in terms of advertisement made an application for allotment
of flat and he had paid registration fee of Rs.5,000/- on 21.8.91.
He received a letter dated
20.4.92 from the Housing Board informing him that he had been
allotted an HIG C Type Flat No.19/4,
First Floor. It was stated in the
letter that this flat was allotted to him under outright purchase basis and he
was required to make the payment of tentative price of Rs.2,13,600/- within one month of the receipt of the
allotment letter. This allotment was
received by the complainant on 1.5.92.
Complainant, thereafter wrote to the Housing Board conveying his
acceptance to the offer of allotment and at the same time required that he may
be issued certificates in form A & B for him to apply for loan as well
as a no objection from the Housing Board to mortgage the flat in the name of
his employer – the Madras Port Trust.
These forms were issued to him.
Complainant made an application to the Madras Port Trust for
raising of loan and also obtained loan for G.P. Fund Account. On
the basis of the loan received from
his GPF A/c complainant
deposited a sum of Rs.72,600/- with the Housing Board on 29.5.92. He sought for further one
months time to pay the balance
amount. He did not receive any reply
thereto. He then visited the site
and found that Block No.19
where flat on the first floor
was supposedly allotted to him had not been constructed at
all. He, therefore, wrote another letter to the Housing
Board requesting for a date
be fixed for inspection of the premises since that was necessary for
grant of loan after mortgaging the flat. Again there was no response. Instead on
21.8.92 complainant received a
notice from the Housing Board canceling
his allotment altogether on the ground that
complainant had not paid full
price of the flat. Complainant
protested but he did not receive any reply.
He, therefore, filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the
part of the Housing Board. He sought that the order canceling his allotment be revoked and that balance
amount of Rs.1,36,000/- be accepted or
in the alternative he may be granted other reliefs. It was submitted by the Housing Board that when the complainant did not stick to the condition of allotment inasmuch as he did not pay the
price within one month on receipt of the allotment letter the allotment had to
be cancelled. It is also
submitted that in the
advertisement it was mentioned
that the scheme would be finalised
only after assessing the demand from the public and it was nowhere indicated
that the flats were constructed and were readily available.
It was thus submitted that the
allotment was cancelled as per rule and that therefore there was no deficiency
in service on the part of Housing Board as alleged.
State Commission
upheld the contention of the Housing
Board as to the plea that no response
was necessary to be given by the Housing Board to the communication of the complainant. State Commission was of the view that Housing Board was not
required to reply to each and every communication received from the
complainant. We think that was unfortunate comment to make. It may be stated that Housing Bard is not
required to reply to every letter but
when letters of substance were written and
time is sought for making payment
and also for inspection of flats for the purpose of raising loan it was the
duty of the Housing Board to respond to the complainant and to apprise him of
the correct position. That admittedly
was not done. State Commission noticed
that on the date of allotment of the flat not an inch of the flat has been
constructed. There is no explanation
forthcoming as to why certificates in
Form A & B were issued by the Housing Board for the complainant to mortgage the flat for
raising loan from his employer, Madras Port Trust. We do not think it should be the case of the Housing Board that when there is no construction there
could still be mortgage. We do not
think in the circumstances of the case there is any other view possible except
to hold that Housing Board was deficient in service. It had rather misled the complainant and
other persons similarly situated. To our
specific query it was submitted by the complainant who argued his case in
person that at present no flat is available which could be allotted to him.
It was then submitted before us by the complainant that
during the pendency of the complaint the amount of Rs.72,600/- paid by him was
refunded to him on 12.1.96 with
interest @ 8% per annum. In the case
of Haryana Urban Development Authority
vs. Darsh Kumar – Revision Petition No.1197/98
decided on 31.8.2001, in similar circumstances we had awarded interest @
18% per annum by way of compensation which includes interest at the Bank rate
on fixed deposits at the relevant time
and 7% as cost of escalation.
We,
therefore, direct that the amount of Rs.72,600/- paid by the complainant shall carry interest from the respective dates of deposits made,
@ 18% per annum till payment. From this
the amount paid 12.1.96 with interest @ 8% shall stand adjusted. Housing Board shall calculate balance amount payable and shall pay the
same within eight weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. Complainant
shall also be entitled to cost of this
appeal which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, order of the State
Commission is set aside and complaint is allowed in the terms above mentioned.
J
(D.P.
WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
J
(J.K.
MEHRA )
MEMBER
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
.
(B.K.
TAIMNI)
MEMBER
J
(K.S.GUPTA
)
MEMBER