TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. J VICTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the complainant has applied for allotment of a flat. He purchased a flat bearing No. C-372 at Anna Nagar, Madurai under outright purchase scheme on 31.5.1988. Later, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board permitted the complainant to avail loan from BHEL for the said building which was ready. At the time of allotment, the cost was fixed at Rs.96,500/-. The complainant after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the opposite party mortgaged the said property with BHEL and paid the entire cost of Rs.96,500/-. There was an obligation on the part of the opposite party to execute the sale deed after lapse of 5 years. After completion of 5 years, the complainant wrote a letter on 2.6.1994 demanding execution of the sale deed. But there was no response. While so, the opposite party sent a reply on 6.10.1997 with working sheet demanding the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.56,598/-. They calculated under the head of capitalization a sum of Rs.22,167/- and interest for the said sum from May 1988 to October 1997 at the rate of 14%, a sum of Rs.29,483/- and interest on Rs.1,500/- from May 1988 to October 1988, a sum of Rs.105/- and maintenance charges from September 1988 to October 1997, as sum of Rs.6,600/- and thus demanded a total sum of Rs.56,598/-. The opposite party is not legally entitled to claim such a huge amount. The capitalization and interest on capitalization will not arise in an outright flat purchase. The complainant without prejudice to the contention deposited the sum of Rs.58,862/- under protest to the opposite party and later on the opposite party executed the registered sale deed on 27.2.1998. The complainant demanded the return of the said amount on the basis that the collection made by the opposite party is against the law and that it is also barred by limitation. The opposite party failed to submit any accounts or with explanations or details to the complainant. The failure of the opposite party to execute the sale deed for several years after effecting payment amounts to gross deficiency in service. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund the sum of Rs.58,862/-. The complainant, therefore, prays for a direction to the opposite party for the refund or payment of Rs.58,862/- with interest at 12%.

(2.) The opposite party filed their version containing the following averments. The complainant is not a consumer. The complainant applied for alloment of a HIG "c" Type flat at Anna Nagar. He agreed to pay the price that may be ultimately fixed by the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai. He further agreed to abide by the rules and regulations and circulars and orders. The complainant was allotted a HIG 'c' Flat No.372 II Floor at Anna Nagar. In the lease-cum-sale agreement, the selling price of the flat was fixed at Rs.95,000/-. The allotment was made under outright purchase system and not under hire purchase system. Hence, the complainant was bound to remit the entire sale price of Rs.95,000/- within a month from the date of the allotment order. The complainant received the allotment order on 24.5.1988. The complainant was also requested to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the cost of compound wall. The complainant wanted to avail a housing loan from the Department and requested the Housing Board to issue A and B Certificate for availing the loan. Therefore, the complainant was directed to remit Rs.2,250/- whereupon necessary certificates were furnished to the complainant. The complainant was also informed by letter dated 31.5.1988 to pay the full cost on or before 31.7.1988. The complainant executed the outright purchase agreement. He did not remit the full costs on or before 31.7.1988. The opposite party wrote a letter stating that the flat was ready for occupation from November, 1987 onwards and the petitioner has been requested frequently to take over the flat. Again he was informed that he should take possession of the flat before 20.9.1988. The opposite party wrote another letter on 5.9.1998 requesting the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,017/- towards balance of the cost which was sent by the complainant on 14.9.1988. The final cost of the flat allotted will be determined later on by the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai. Since the flat was made ready in November, 1987, interest had to be calculated from that date when the flat was ready for occupation till the date when the key received by the complainant. The key order was received by the complainant on 14.9.1988. Therefore, from November 1987 to September 1988, the complainant is liable to pay interest. According to the working sheet the complainant has to pay Rs.56,598/- being the balance including interest, penal interest and maintenance charges upto October, 1997. The complainant has remitted the said amount on 11.2.1998 and thus the entire due by the complainant to the opposite party was paid only on 11.2.1998. While so, on 6.10.1997, the opposite party had written a letter requesting the complainant to pay Rs.56,598/- towards the balance of the cost of the flat on or before 31.10.1997. In spite of that the complainant remitted the amount only on 11.2.1998. It is not true to say that the cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.96,500/-. According to the condition No.17, the outright purchase agreement, the sale deed will be issued in favour of the complainant only after the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession or after the final cost of the land and the costs of construction of the flat are duly determined by the Housing Board. Therefore, in accordance with the above condition, the complainant can claim the execution of the sale deed only after 5 years and after the payment of the amount due to the Housing Board. The complainant admittedly paid the entire amount on 11.2.1998. It was also not known whether the complainant was the member of the Co-operative Housing Building Society of Anna Nagar. Thus the complainant failed to satisfy the requirement of the condition No.17 of the outright purchase agreement. The allegations that the complainant was liable to pay only Rs.22,167/- is false. The rate of interest as well as the period for which the interest was calculated is proper and legal and in accordance with the rules of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The capitalization and the interest on the capitalization will be done from the date the house was made ready for occupation. The opposite party has executed and registered sale deed in respect of the flat allotted to the complainant as per the rules and regulations of the Housing Board and the original sale deed was received by the complainant on 26.2.1998. Further, the name transfer had also been effected in the name of the complainant. Sketch has also been handed over to the complainant. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to Rs.58,862/-. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. The proper remedy of the complainant is only to approach a Civil Court, if it becomes necessary.

(3.) On the above pleadings and after perusing the records, the lower Forum passed an order on 14.12.1999 directing the Housing Board to pay a sum of Rs.58,862/- with interest at 12% per annum and pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards mental agony and torture and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. On failure, the opposite party was also directed to pay interest at 18% per annum on the sum of Rs.5,000/-.