R SURESH KUMAR Vs. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in COP No.92/99 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode is the appellant herein. His complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum. Not satisfied with that, the present appeal has been filed. The case of the complainant was as follows : Pursuant to the advertisement inserted by the 1st opposite party, the complainant submitted an application and got a site allotted. This was found to be rocky and surrounded by thorny bushes and it was not possible to break the rock to clear the area and put up a construction. The promise by the authorities to give an alternative site did not fructify. The complainant made several visits to the office of the 1st opposite party in this connection and addressed letters, telegrams and fax but nothing worthwhile happened. On 1.6.1998 when he went to the office, he was told that if the entire amount of Rs.28,550 together with the 1st instalment of Rs.888 was paid, his allotment could be changed. The complainant made the application on 1.6.1998 itself by sending the application under Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. He paid the amount on 1.6.1998 itself. Till 15.6.1998 there was no respose. The complainant reminded the 1st opposite party. Even thereafter there was no allotment made. After several months, some other plot was allotted orally. The complainant was assured that before drawing of lots another plot would be allotted to the complainant. Fax and telegrams were also sent. The complainant approached the Erode Consumer Protection Council. They sent a letter calling for explanation. There was a letter received from the 2nd opposite party bearing date 28.10.1998. This letter was taken to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party said that it was not possible to change the allotment. All these things happened on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. During one of his visits when the complainant had taken his mother with him she fell down in the office of the 1st opposite party, and broke her fore arm. Thousands of rupees were spent for her treatment. The complainant had been waiting for the opposite parties to allot a different plot. On 6.1.1999 the 1st opposite party gave a list of four plots. Even those plots were rocky. In these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint for allotment of proper plot which was not rocky, to pay Rs.20,000 as compensation, Rs.40,000 towards treatment of his mother, 18% interest on the amount of Rs.29,538 deposited by the complainant, compensation of Rs.60,000, Rs.1,500 towards expenses for letters, telegram and fax, Rs.100 towards costs and Rs.10,000 towards rentals for 10 months during which period the complainant could not own the plot.

(2.) Besides denying the various allegations in the complaint the 1st opposite party in his version submitted as follows : After payment of the initial deposit amount, without taking steps to take possession of the house site, the complainant began to search for a new HIG site which could not be complied with by the opposite parties. After receipt of the money, the plot was made ready for occupation. But all along the complainant was avoiding completion of the documentation in search of HIG plot in the area for which the complainant was neither eligible nor the 1st opposite party empowered to allot the allotment of the site was not made arbitrarily nor according to the whims and fancies of the officials of the Housing Board but strictly as per rules. Once the allotment was made and the allottee failed to take possession of the site after complying with the requirements, his allotment would be cancelled and the same would be given to the wait-listed persons according to their order in the waiting list. The complainant ought to have approached the higher authorities for change of plot. He did not do that nor did he take steps to have the documentation completed to take possession of the plot allotted to him. After paying the initial deposit and one month instalment for Plot No.428, the avoidance of execution of documents in favour of the Board clearly showed the intention to go for a HIG plot. The prayer in the complaint for compensation under various heads was not maintainable and wholly untenable. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) There were 28 documents filed on the side of the complainant which were marked as Exs. A.1 to A28 and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties.