BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 703 of 2007 against C.C. 56 of 2006, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
Chada Sabitha,
W/o. Narasimhulu
H. No. LIG1-174
A.P. Housing Board Colony
Karimnagar. *** Appellant/
. Complainant
And
The Executive Engineer
A.P. Housing Board
A.P. Housing Board Colony
Karimnagar. *** Respondent/
O.P.
FA 704 of 2007 against C.C. 127 of 2006, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
D. Rajalingam
S/o. Rajamouli
H. No. LIG1-103
A.P. Housing Board Colony
Karimnagar. *** Appellant/
. Complainant
And
The Executive Engineer
A.P. Housing Board
A.P. Housing Board Colony
Karimnagar. *** Respondent/
O.P.
FA 705 of 2007 against C.C. 53 of 2006, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
Chada Jyothi
W/o. CH. Srinivas
H. No. 120, LIG-I,
A.P. Housing Board Colony
Karimnagar. *** Appellant/
. Complainant
And
The Executive Engineer
A.P. Housing Board
A.P. Housing Board Colony
Karimnagar. *** Respondent/
O.P.
Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P.
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. D. Ranganath Kumar
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) Appellants are un-successful complainants.
2) Though the Dist. Forum disposed of the matters by separate orders, considering the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we are of the opinion that all these appeals could be disposed of by a common order.
3) We narrate the facts in F.A. 703/2007 as representative case for better appreciation. The case of the complainant in brief is that she was allotted a house LIG-174 by the respondent housing board on 30.6.2000 on payment of Rs. 50,000/-. She was given possession on 30.6.2001. The respondent by its letter informed the complainant that the cost of the house was fixed at Rs. 1,04,000/-. She had paid an amount of Rs. 1, 95,203/- as on 18.3.2004 through various demand notices for different amounts were served towards cost of the allotted house. The complainant was entitled for reduction of penal interest to an extent of 75%, 2% incentive on total cost of the house. The respondent waived interest on the cost of the houses to all the allottees till 1.1.2001. She paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards refundable registration charges as per the assurance of the respondent. Despite her requests copy of the account was not furnished. Though she was entitled to benefits under One Time Settlement it was not made applicable to her. It had enhanced the cost of the house without any rhyme or reason. Alleging deficiency in service on this aspect she filed the complaint claiming refund of excess amount wrongly collected towards penal interest, refund of registration charges with interest @ 18% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony, and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
4) The respondent housing board resisted the case. While admitting that she was allotted a house LIG-174 after paying down payment of amount and executing agreement of sale. She was given possession of the house, however, she failed to pay the quarterly instalments by due dates despite several notices issued to her. On 1.6.2004 the respondent housing board offered One Time Settlement (OTS) to all the allottees to settle their accounts and got their houses registered by availing benefits under the scheme viz., rebate in penal interest, incentive on final cost, and refund of certain percentage of registration charge. These benefits were given for those allottees who settled their accounts under OTS with effect from 1.6.2004. Since the complainant had settled her account by November, 2003 and got her house registered on 23.1.2004 she was not entitled to the benefits under the above scheme. In fact the pricing factor does not come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Since her account was settled long back she was not entitled to any benefit, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A16 marked while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of its Executive Engineer and got Exs. B1 to B3 marked.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined the complainant paid the entire amount, and got the house registered on 17.3.2004 vide Ex. A11 however One Time Settlement scheme was offered with effect from 1.6.2004 for those allottees who did not pay the amount, nor got the house registered. At any rate fixation of price would not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act by relying a decision of National Commission in Maya Devi Keshwani Vs. M.P. Housing Board reported in 2004 (2) ALT 9, and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It did not consider housing board authorities collecting higher prices unjustifiably after delivery of possession and execution of sale deed belatedly without any reason. Collection of higher prices amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint was filed not only for collection of enhanced price of the house but also for non-conferment of benefits, and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants were allotted houses LIG1-74, LIG1-103, and LIG1-120 respectively on 30.6.2000 on payment of certain amounts. Possession was handed over and also executed sale deed on 17.3.2004 vide Ex. A11. They had paid the entire amount without any due by 17.3.2004. However, the housing board offered One Time Settlement scheme by its notification dt. 1.6.2004 directing the defaulters to pay the entire amount for which they would be given benefits viz., rebate in penal interest, incentive on final cost, and refund of certain percentage of registration charge. This would come into effect from 1.6.2004. It may be stated herein that this One Time Settlement benefit was given to those allottees who were defaulters by 1.6.2004. The complainant having paid the entire amount by 17.3.2004 long before the said date they were not entitled to the benefits. It is unfortunate that the complainants were not given any benefit though they had discharged the entire loan long before said notification. Since it is a policy decision, we may not enter into the vires of the notification, and order refund of the amount paid by them on the ground that OTS was given to those defaulters, who did not pay by 1.6.2004.
May be it looks as though defaulters would be benefited for not adhering to the time schedule but on the said basis the complainant could not be extended same benefit since they had already discharged the entire amount even before commencement of notification. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeals.
10) In the result the appeals are dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
30/07/2012
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
