TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. M. PUTTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in C.O.P. No. 41/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows : He was alloted house in Plot No. 848 LIG as per the allottment order dated 5.5.1994. He was also informed in June 1994 that the house would be handed over to him after obtaining E.B. service connection. On the basis of the allotment order, the complainant's employer, Superintending Engineer, TNEB, DEDC, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 98,000 for the purpose of the said house in his office proceedings dated 6.12.1996. The opposite party by letter dated 1.4.1997 also confirmed that the house would be handed over after payment of the fee cost. On the basis of the said letter, the complainant's employer paid a sum of Rs. 88,700 to the opposite party. But the house was not delivered. To the notice sent on behalf of the complainant, a reply was sent by the opposite party on 9.12.1997 stating that only house in Plot No. 850 was allotted to the complainant and not house in Plot No. 848 and that house No. 850 was ready for occupation since July 1997 and as such the complainant had to pay interest from July 1997 and take possession of house in Plot No. 850.

(2.) THE case of the opposite party was that for the purpose of getting loan from the complainant's employer, the allotment was given as if house in Plot No. 848 had been earmarked for the complainant. But actually, it was only house in Plot No. 850 which was allotted to him. The still in force certificate itself had been issued on the specific understanding that the complainant would be allotted house in Plot No. 850 and not house in Plot No. 848. There was no deficiency in service.

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum, on the side of the complainant, Exs. A1 to A16 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs. B1 and B2 were marked.