EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TRICHY HOUSING UNIT Vs. TRICHY DISTRICT CONSUMER COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Trichy Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the appellant in all these appeals. About 32 complaints were filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirappali.

(2.) The common case of the complaint is thus: the complainants were allotted houses by the appellant and the complainants were asked to deposit certain sums of money as the price of the same and agreements were also entered into between the parties. But after the construction was completed and they were handed over possession, the complainants found various defects in the construction. The defects were as follows: The sealing was leaking; cracks had developed in the walls; the electrical installation was done with sub-standard materials; the doors, windows and other wooden fittings were all made of inferior quality and they are decaying. Only after the houses/were handed over and in the course of occupation over time, the complainants came to know these defects. In spite of several requests by the complainants, the Housing Board did not take any steps to rectify or carry out the repairs. Not less than a sum of Rs.60,000/- would be required to carry out the repairs. Therefore, in such circumstances, the complaints have been lodged directing the opposite party to compensate the complainants for the expenses to be incurred by them for carrying out the repairs and towards mental agony since there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

(3.) The Housing Board contended that the houses were constructed properly and all amenities and facilities were provided. The complainants have availed of loan facilities from HUDCO and thus the constructions were made. Only after inspecting and being satisfied about the nature of the construction and condition of the building, the complainants took possession of the same. The materials used for the construction were of standard quality. The woods used in the wood work were of good quality and not of an inferior quality. There is no leakage in the ceiling nor there were any cracks. The complainants have been living in the houses constructed and allotted to them and having lived for some time to come and say that there are defects now, it will be untenable for them to say so. There is no deficiency in service. If at all there are any defects, it may be due to the failure on the part of the occupants to maintain the houses in proper condition. The other allegations that during rainy days, there is leakage of water from the ceiling in the kitchen and other places is equally false. There was an agreement between the appellant/opposite party and the builders under which the builders are bound to maintian the building for a period of three years. Now that period has expired and, therefore, the present complaints are not tenable in law. The constructions were all made keeping in view the departmental instructions, guidelines and other prevailing construction norms. Having resided in the building for over a long period, the complainants are estopped from now saying that there are defects or that there are repairs to be carried out. Therefore, the opposite party had requested that the complaints be dismissed.