ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. RAMA CHANDRA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 29.12.2000 passed by the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case No. 26 of 1994 and 10 other C.D. cases filed against (1) Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Orissa Secretariat, Bhubaneswar, and (2) Secretary, Orissa State Housing Board, A/32, Kharavelanagar, Bhubaneswar. In the present appeals, we are only concerned with C.D. Case No. 26 of 1994 filed by the complainant Ramachandra Choudhury. By the impugned order, the District Forum allowed the consumer complaint on contest against opposite party No. 2 and ex parte against opposite party No. l with cost of Rs. 1,000 to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant. It was further directed that the complainant is entitled to refund of the escalated price of Rs. 47,487, if already paid, and not required to pay the same, if not paid. The opposite parties were directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the deposited amount with effect from 1.1.1991 till 1.3.1993. The entire amount along with interest and cost was directed to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant would recover the same in accordance with law. Assailing the said order, opposite party No. 2, i.e., the Housing Board, has filed CD Appeal No. 149 of 2001. The complainant has, however, filed CD Appeal No. 264 of 2001 for a direction for payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the escalation cost of Rs. 47,487 as well as interest of Rs. 13,657 paid thereon up to the date of actual refund. Prayer has also been made to set aside the impugned order so far as it relates to inspection of house and rectification of defects by respondent No. 2. Further prayer has also been made for award of compensation of Rs. 55,100 to be paid by opposite party No. 2 towards cost of rectification/replacement of defects.

(2.) SINCE both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, we have heard them together and dispose them of by this common order.

(3.) COMPLAINANT Ramachandra Choudhury filed the aforementioned C.D. case alleging that he had made initial deposit of Rs. 25,000 pursuant to the advertisement made by opposite party No. 2 Housing Board and provisional allotment of a house under the Self Financing Scheme at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, bearing number HIG -114 was made in his favour. Final allotment order containing the detailed terms and conditions of allotment was also made in his name. The estimated cost of the house was Rs. 2,50,000 as per the advertisement, which was duly confirmed in the final allotment order, and the expected date of delivery of possession of the house was mentioned to be by December, 1989. But, opposite party No. 2 -Housing Board arbitrarily enhanced the cost of the project after the stipulated date of payment of final instalment on 30.6.1990 and also delayed the delivery of possession of the house to the complainant by three years in spite of requests and correspondences made by the complainant. In spite of the delay caused by opposite party No. 2 in the matter of completion of the project, it arbitrarily and illegally charged interest at the rate of 15% per annum in case of delayed payment of instalments. On 30.4.1990, opposite party No. 2 intimated the complainant regarding escalation of the cost of the house from 2.5 lakh to Rs. 3.00 lakh due to escalation of price of different building materials and labour charges without giving the detailed particulars of escalation and revised the estimate. The complainant raised protest to such escalation. Opposite party No. 2 Housing Board in its letter dated 1.10.1990 intimated the complainant for giving delivery of possession of the house by the end of March, 1991 without mentioning the cause of delay or giving any justification for escalation of the price. The Housing Board, however, took some excuses for the delay in construction in its letter dated 22.12.1990 to cover up its negligence, which, according to the complainant, is nothing but unfair trade practice. The Housing Board in its letter dated 9.11.1991 advised the complainant for joint inspection of the house to find out the defects and deficiencies and to start the process of documentation with effect from 1.10.1990 and to give physical delivery of possession of the house from 1.1.1992. But, the Housing Board failed to materialize the proposal of joint inspection, documentation and delivery of possession in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant. Thereafter, the Housing Board assured to give delivery of possession by October, 1992 through its letter dated 3.9.1992 explaining the difficulties pertaining to supply of water to the housing project by the Public Health Department. The Housing Board, without any valid reason, fixed the final cost of the house at Rs. 3,47,487, which is inclusive of the previous enhanced cost of Rs. 97,497 over the original and initial cost of Rs. 2.50 lakh as per its letter dated 1.2.1993 with direction to pay the same in six monthly instalments with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs. 1,200 towards water tariff and execute the agreement. The increase of 39% in the cost due to the fault of the Housing Board is not legal and justified, according to the complainant. The complainant signed the agreement under the project to get delivery of possession, but before taking delivery of possession of the house, he intimated the defects and deficiencies to the Chairman of the Housing Board through letter dated 1.6.1993, and the Housing Board failed to rectify the defects in spite of reminders. The complainant got the house examined by a registered valuer, who valued the repair cost at Rs. 50,100. The complainant brought the fact to the notice of the Chairman of opposite party No. 2 with request to pay the same along with compensation of Rs. 30,000 for want of infrastructural facility. So, according to the complainant, there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2, which is confirmed by the relevant extracts of the reports of the public undertaking committee dated 13.3.1991, report of the vigilance squad and representation to the Chief Minister.