SUDHAKAR JOGI MOHANTI R/O. HIG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT., HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,ORISSA SECRETARIAT, BHUBNESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of common order of State Commission involving similar facts; hence, decided by common order.

(2.) These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'the State Commission') in CDC Nos. 218 to 222/1993 Sudhakar Jogi Mohanti Vs. State of Orissa & Anr., Harun Rasid Khan Vs. State of Orissa & Anr., Bijay Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Orissa & Anr., Amarendra Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa & Anr. and V. Appa Rao Vs. State of Orissa & Anr., by which, complaints were dismissed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Housing Board/OP No.2/Respondent No. 2 by an advertisement dated 28.07.1988 published in the daily 'Samaj' called for applications from intending purchasers in the prescribed form for HIG houses proposed to be built at Chandrasekharpur on Nandan Kanan Road and at Jagamara near Khandagiri under Self-Financing Scheme and HUDCO Financing Scheme at a provisional cost of Rs. 2.5 lakhs having plinth area of 1,200 sq. fts. The expected date of completion of the houses was given as 31.12.1989. The applicants were required to pay as advance deposit along with application in the form of bank draft in favour of Orissa State Housing Board Fund. Preference was given to the applicants who would be depositing the entire cost of the house at one time or varying from 50% to 100% of the cost of the house. The last date of receipt of applications was 31.08.1988. Accordingly, the complainants/appellants applied for the said houses. Subsequently, on 11.08.1989, OP No. 2 intimated the complainants that the plinth area of the houses proposed to be built had been increased from 1200 sq. fts. to 1400 sq. fts. without changing the minimum cost of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The grievance of the complainants is that while the complainants paid up all the instalments in time as required by the Housing Board, the Housing Board did not fulfil their promise as to the completion of the houses and delivery of possession. On 18.12.1990, the complainants received a letter from the Housing Board wherein reasons for the delay in handing over possession of the houses were assigned. The letter also stated that the houses in question were nearing completion and the likely date of completion was indicated to be 31.01991. Thereafter, the Housing Board wrote many letters to the complainants for postponing the date of delivery of possession, the last such letter being dated 29.04.1992, wherein it was stated that the houses would be handed over by the end of May, 1992. The grievance of the complainants is that even after the said letter, delivery of possession was actually made during 199 The further grievance of the complainants is that the lack of arrangement for water supply which could be clearly stated to be an instance of deficiency in service by the Housing Board. Housing Board in their letter dated 30.04.1990 intimated that the provisional cost of the house had been increased from Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs due to escalation of price. The instalments payable by the complainants were accordingly revised. In response to the communication from the Housing Board, when the complainants made specific request to know the reason for escalation and asked for a copy of the original estimate, the Board wrote to one of the purchasers, namely, Ramesh Chandra Vantaram, that it was not possible to furnish the estimate, either in original or revised. He was also asked by the Housing Board to take back his deposited money if he was aggrieved by the escalation of cost. This has been stated to be an open threat of cancellation of allotment, for which the complainants did not pursue their query any further. The complainants have stated that this conduct of OP No. 2 was a glaring example of highhandedness and arbitrariness, OP No. 2 being a mere builder was behaving like a despotic sovereign power. The Housing Board vide their letter dated 206.1992 intimated to one of the complainants, namely, Sudhakar Jogimohanty that construction of the house was complete and the final cost of the house was Rs.3,46,466/-. This complainant was asked to deposit the balance cost of Rs.46,466/- before taking delivery of possession of the house. After this, again the Housing Board/OP No. 2 wrote to the complainant further revising the final cost by enhancing it to Rs.3,60,458.00 vide their letter dated 8.2.199 This principle was also made applicable to the case of Sudhakar Jogimohanty who was by then already in possession of the house after having signed the agreement. The further grievance of the complainants is about the defects and deficiencies in construction of the houses due to the use of sub-standard materials and bad workmanship. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainants filed separate complaints for refund of excess amount, payment of cost of repair, payment of interest for delay in delivery of possession and compensation.