TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. R KESAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's case is as follows : The complainant applied to the opposite party for allotment of a flat under HIG scheme and remitted a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant was advised by the opposite party to remit a sum of Rs.1,79,245/- towards the cost of the flat within a month of the intimation. The complainant applied for a loan from the Electricity Board and, therefore, requested the opposite party to grant him time by three months. The opposite party directed the complainant to pay interest on the said sum for three months and accordingly the complainant paid interest of Rs.6,535/-. On 2.4.1992 the complainant paid the sale price of Rs.1,74,000/- after deducting the advance sum of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant received a letter stating that the house is ready for occupation, but on verification the complainant found that it was not complete. Therefore, the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party and enquired about the completion of the house. The opposite party assured that the house will be completed within a week. The complainant took possession of the house on 19.6.1992. The collection of interest amounting to Rs.6,535/- from the complainant is not legal. The house has not been provided with basic amenities such as electricity supply, water supply, plastering of windows, screen painting and the shutters were not fixed and the doors and windows were incomplete. Under law, the complainant is deemed to be the owner of the flat when he took possession of the house. The complainant approached the opposite party several times to complete the construction with all amenities. During the said period viz. , from 2.4.1992 to 16.2.1993 the complainant was residing outside in a rented house with a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. The complainant is entitled to recover the rent of Rs.8,000/- for 8 months from the opposite party. The complainant is also entitled to interest at 8% on the sum of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant was compelled to take leave and visit Coimbatore on several occasions. He was put to much mental agony. Therefore, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay interest in a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the date of deposit and direction to the opposite party to pay the rent paid by the complainant for the period during which he was compelled to rent out a building and also direct the opposite party to pay interest at 12% on the sum of Rs.1,74,000/- from 2.4.1992 till 16.2.1993 when the house was completed and to pay back the amount of Rs.6,535/- collected by the opposite party in violation of the allotment and pay a sum of Rs.500/-.

(2.) The opposite party contended as follows: The complainant is not a consumer. The allegations that the house was incomplete and that he complained about the same to the opposite party and that the opposite party promised to complete it at the earliest, are all false. It is not correct to say that the collection of interest in a sum of Rs.6,535/- is illegal. The other allegation that basic amenities such as electricity supply, water supply, plastering of windows, screen painting were not done and that shutters were not provided to doors and windows is equally false. The complainant is not entitled to recover any amount much less towards the rent alleged to have been paid by him. The complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation much less towards mental agony. The complainant is not entitled to claim interest on the sum of Rs.1,74,000/-. The complainant took possession of the house without any objection and, therefore, he is estopped from saying that the house was not fit for occupation. Therefore the opposite party prays that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The lower Forum allowed the complaint and hence the present appeal.