CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. N SIVASAILAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision Petitioners, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras and the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Madurai have filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 7th April, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (For short the State Commission) in A.P. No. 642 of 1993. It may be montioned here that the present Revision Petitioners were opposite parties in the complaint filed before the District Forum by the present respondent, N. Sivasailam. The District Forum, Madurai allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs. 18,700/- towards cost of repairs effected by the complainant in the house allotted to him plus Rs. 1,000/- towards mental agony totalling Rs. 19,700/- and Rs. 500/- was also allowed as cost of the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against the order the present Revision Petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. Hence, this Revision Petition by the opposite parties.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for a house on 18.9.73 in response to an advertisement of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. He was allotted house No. 328, MIG Colony, Anna Nagar, Madurai in 1976. The complainant was in Government Service at that time and, therefore, he let out the house. After his retirement he occupied the house on 30.4.87. When he occupied the house he noticed some major cracks in the main southern wall of the house which according to the complainant were due to defective design and construction and presumably due to use of sub standard building material in the construction of the house. He sent a letter dated 4.5.87 to the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer (opposite party No. 2) demanding the rectification of the defects in the house. On 19.5.87 one Mr. Durairaj, Assistant Engineer of the Housing Board inspected the house and estimated the cost of rectification of defectsat Rs. 18,700/-. He has taken into account some other defects. The complainant took photos of the house and sent to the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer requesting him to start the repair work. The complainant estimated the cost at Rs. 20,000/- and wrote a letter dated 17.6.87 to the opposite party No. 2 to effect the repairs. The final permission was granted to the complainant on 14.3.88. He was told that the repairs can be effected upto the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant effected the repairs but according to him he spent Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant wrote many letters to the II nd opposite party to pay the cost of repairs. However, vide letter dated 1.10.92 he was informed that it was not feasible for them to pay the cost of the repairs since the Sale Deed has already been executed in his favour on 15.4.88. The complainant filed the complaint in the District Forum praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of repairs with interest @ 18% p.a. plus Rs. 5,000/-towards mental agony. The IInd opposite party filed counter which was adopted by the 1st opposite party. In the said counter all the contentions of the complainant were denied. It is contended by the opposite party that the possession of the house was handed over to the complainant on 13.12.76 and thus the cost for the repair undertaken on 24.12.88 cannot be asked to be paid due to time bar. The complainant was allowed to effect the repairs to his house subject to the condition that a maximum contribution of Rs. 5,000/- will be released subject to the sanction by the Competent Authorities. However vide letter dated 1.12.92 the higher officials refused to sanction the payment towards the cost of the repairs done by the complainant since the Sale Deed has been executed in his favour son 15.4.88.

(3.) THE main points stated by the Revision Petitioners are that the complaint was time barred and that the complainant was allowed to effect repairs only to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- as per the letter dated 14.7.88 and as the repairs were carried out by the respondent on the basis of the said permission he cannot go beyond the conditional permission and claim more than the permitted amount. We may take the grounds in seriatim.