TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. V MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties are the appellants.

(2.) THE husband of the 1st complainant, and the father of the complainants 2 to 5, was allotted a house MIG 66, on 7.3.1988, by the 1st opposite party, fixing the tentative cost at Rs. 90,584. Possession was also given on 28.6.1988. Lakshmi Kanthan, the original allottee, obtaining the Government loan, settled the entire cost on 7.10.1988, and the first opposite party informed that the sale deed would be executed, after the completion of 5 years, from the date of allotment, and they never informed about the final cost.

(3.) ALL of a sudden, in the year 1999, Lakshmi Kanthan, was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500, which was also paid on 28.9.1999, and even thereafter the opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed. Further on 14.8.2002, another demand for Rs. 33,700 was made, without assigning any reason, for which a request was made to withdraw, whereas a further communication, emanated from the 1st opposite party dated 25.6.2003, demanding a sum of Rs. 46,100 as on 31.7.2003. At the time of giving certificates, it was not informed about the capitalization, for the belated payment if any, and therefore the demand should be construed, as unfair trade practice, as well as deficiency in service, which caused mental agony, to the complainant, since the original allottee, Lakshmikanthan, died on 4.2.2003. The non -execution of the sale deed, should be construed as deficiency in service, for which a direction should be issued, to execute the sale deed, in addition to awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000. Thus, "a consumer complaint, came to be filed before the District Forum.