P C PUJAPANDA Vs. ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the appeals have been preferred by the complainant and opposite party as appellants against the same order passed in C.D. Case No. 298 of 1996 on 24.9.1998 by the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE appellant -P.C. Pujapanda as complainant has alleged in the complaint petition that he had applied for taking a house under proposed Housing Scheme at Patia in 1988 sponsored by State Housing Board, Bhubaneswar and deposited a sum of Rs. 16,220 while applying for the house under the scheme. Subsequently, the State Housing Board informed him that he could not be eligible for allotment of a house at Patia, but acknowledging his earlier payment with interest one M.I.G. house was allotted to him under self -financing scheme at Chandrasekharpur with a provisional cost of Rs. 1.5 lakh (excluding cost of the land and the boundary) a single storeyed house with plinth area of 920 sq. ft. having two bed rooms, two toilets, etc. and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,300 by end of August, 1989. The complainant went on depositing the instalments as per the schedule and the opposite party issued a provisional allotment order on 9.11.1989 revising the price of the house to Rs. 1,90,000 and providing schedule regarding payment and the last payment was to be made on 31.12.1990 and the last instalment was fixed at Rs. 30,000. The complainant s allegation is that he cleared up all the instalments by 30.10.1990 and intimated the opposite party Housing Board on 30.11.1990 for delivery of possession of the house allotted. It is further case of the complainant that after the payment of the entire amount before 31.10.1990, the opposite party remained silent, even though they were reminded by several letters. They never reported regarding the progress of the construction work and it is also stated that there was no visible construction work during four years, i.e. from 1988 to 1991. It is alleged that thereafter the Housing Board again intimated about the revised final cost of the house vide their letter dated 7.6.1993 stating that the cost of the house was assessed at Rs. 2,73,050 and on that score there was a demand for the balance amount of Rs. 83,090 by 22.6.1993 with a revised plot size reducing the plinth area. It is alleged that even though there was no delay on the part of the complainant in payment, an amount of Rs. 2,292 was charged as interest. The opposite party issued a proposal of handing over possession along with the agreement for lease on 11.6.1993 rescheduling instalment payment of Rs. 83,090 and advised their Project Engineer to hand over the house in question at Chandrasekharpur. It is stated further that though the additional amount was also paid by the complainant before November, 1993 and he went to take over possession of the house on 26.6.1993, he noticed that the building was incomplete and there was no P.H. works and electric installations and for that he wrote several letters for taking necessary action for completion of the balance work. It is also alleged that since the building was at incomplete stage in respect of P.H. and electric works, it was not possible to take possession, for which several letters were addressed and ultimately the opposite party charged watch and ward cost of Rs. 400 per month for not taking possession of the building, of which the complainant took over possession on 29.12.1995. On the ground of deficiency in service in not giving possession of the building, even after receiving the total cost thereof, and offering for taking possession of incomplete building and charging interest of Rs. 2,290 alleging delayed payment, the complaint was filed and the opposite party contested the same by filing the written version and ultimately the District Forum allowed the complaint on contest against the opposite party with cost and directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 2,292 collected from the complainant towards interest and also to refund Rs. 11,660 collected from the complainant towards watch and ward charges and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 for harassment caused to the complainant and towards cost of litigation an amount of Rs. 1,000 was directed to be paid.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned judgment and order passed by the District Forum, the Housing Board preferred appeal (C.D. Appeal No. 785 of 1998) and aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation, for not granting interest on the amounts directed to be returned, the complainant preferred appeal (C.D. Appeal No. 774 of 1998).