SECRETARY ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD BHUBANESWAR Vs. CHANDRA SEKHARPUR HOUSING BOARD COLONY UNNAYAN SAMITI BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 28th September, 1991 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack in Complaint Case CD. No. 45 of 1989. That complaint was filed by the present Respondent No. 1, i.e., The Chandrasekharpur Housing Board Colony Unnayan Samiti (for short the 'Samiti') which is a society registered under the Societies Registered Act, 1980 promoted by the residents of the Housing Board Colony at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. One of the aims and objects of the society is to promote, protect and safeguard by all legitimate constitutional means the lawful interests, rights and privileges of its members. According to the allegations in the complaint opposite party No. 2, i.e., The State Housing Board (for short the Board) represented by its Secretary, now appellant, published through an advertisement in the local newspapers and through printed brochures sold to prospective customers during the year 1983-84 notified its intention to build a new colony at Chandrasekharpur, with 2040 multistoried flats of different categories, under their Chandrasekharpur Composite Scheme. It was specifically mentioned in the said brochure that the scheme in question had been sanctioned both by the Government of Orissa (Opposite Party No. 1 and now Respondent No, 2) and HUDCO, the Financing Agency. The said brochure, inter alia, also made clear that there is a ring road around the colony, and that the colony is self sufficient with small shops, schools for children, Health Centre and Religious place. The lay out plan attached to the said brochure gives the exact location of the buildings, and all other facilities / services promised to be provided by the appellant to the intending customers. Thus the overwhelming character of the Scheme floated by the appellant with express approval of O.P. No. 1 was bound to provide services and facilities along with flats for residence to homeless aspirants desirous of owning a house in the capital, at a cost specified separately for each category of flats. Only persons whose family members had no house/land in Bhubaneswar were eligible. Since the scheme was by a statutory body, which was sanctioned by State Government as well as by HUDCO, several persons submitted their applications with requisite deposits and declaration, etc., and those considered suitable and eligible by O.P. No. 2, were allotted flats on payment of part consideration and execution of agreement, in accordance with the terms and conditions incorporated in the brochure. Needless to say, the allotment made by O.P. No. 2 also carried with it solemn assurance of O.P. No. 2 to provide all the services and facilities such as roads, parks, playgrounds, schools, health centre etc. as indicated in the brochure and the lay-out plan attached thereto. The allottees of these flats are members of the complainant Samiti. After taking delivery of the flats, members of the Samiti found to their utter dismay and disappointment that O.P. No. 2 did not fulfill its promises held out in the brochure published by them. Besides, the construction of the flats was of a very poor standard, because of use of substandard material, defective construction, poor supervision, thereby rendering the flats highly vulnerable and unsafe for the inmates. Most of the promises with regard to provision of ring road, internal roads with drains, park, schools and health centre etc. were not fulfilled. When the representative of the complainant society approached the concerned authorities of the Board they were informed that under orders of the O.P. No. 1 the job of providing roads, park and Recreation Centre, etc. had been entrusted to the Bhubaneswar Municipality (O.P. No. 3 and now respondent No. 3). According to the complainant samiti, this is an internal matter among the opposite parties, and the complainant is not aware what arrangement has been made to provide the above facilities and how responsibility has been divided between the Board and the Municipality. The more important acts of omission and commission of the Board and the Municipality which have affected the individual members of the Society are as follows:

(2.) IT was further the case of the complainant that there were various structural defects, as detailed in the complaint, in the construction of the flats/houses. In case of LIC, EWS and MIG I category of flats, no space has been provided for parking of cycles, even though there are 12 flats in each block (6 flats in case of MIG I category). No separate parking place has also been given by the Board to the owners of these flats, although such space has been provided by the Board in case of other category of flats. Many representations were made to the Board, Government of Orissa and the Bhubaneswar Municipality for redressal of the above grievances and rectifications but to no effect. The Complainant, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties be directed, to provide, within a reasonable time, all the Roads, Parks, Schools, Health Centre and all other services/facilities for the residents of the Colony, as promised in the brochure. The Board should also be directed to effect the repairs and rectification work required to remove the defects and deficiencies in the buildings. In the alternative the Board should be directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9.50 lakhs with the State Commission immediately, so that requisite repair/rectification work can be entrusted to an appropriate Agency. The Board be also directed to remove/demolish the unauthorised structures/buildings put up by it as well as by the Orissa State Electricity Board on the sites earmarked in the approved lay-out plan for children's park and nursery respectively.

(3.) THE State Commission had a sitting at Chandrasekharpur Colony to inspect the locality since the Board asserted that on inspection the misconduct of the owners of the flats could be found. The Commission also gave an opportunity to the Board for taking decision in respect of the promises and the defects. The Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the Board filed a memorandum of instructions of the Housing Board viz,, as follows: