BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER - I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 14 / 2003 TUESDAY THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2011. R. Chandrasekaran, S/o. Sri Raju, 11/48 Vijayaragavapuram, Sathuvachari, Vellore 632 009. … Complainant. - Vs – Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore Housing Unit, By its Executive Officer-Administrative Officer, Phase -1, Sathuvachari, Vellore – 632 009. … Opposite party. …… This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 27.6.11, in the presence of Thiru. T.L. Narayanan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.N.K. Selvaraj, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. I. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant applied for allotment of a MIG House to the opposite party by application No.14320 dt. 6.3.91 in Walajapet. The opposite party confirmed allotment by is letter of 8.3.91. The complainant was instructed to deposit a sum of Rs.58,215/- as initial deposit and the tentative price was fixed and intimated as Rs.1.74,645/-. The complainant being a Government as he then was, by the GO dt.7.2.91 was permitted to pay in easy installments. Accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4100/- on 15.3.91 and Rs.475/- towards interest on 4.4.91 received without any demur by the opposite party. Subsequently the complainant was served with the regular allotment order and intimation of delivery on 10.4.91. The complainant had applied for House Building Advance and the opposite party had instructed the complainant to pay monthly interest installment at Rs.675/- + Rs.25/- fixing the price of the plot and house at Rs.1,74,645/- as afore stated. The opposite party had accordingly issued no objection certificates along with A and B Certificates concerting the allotment into hire purchase system i.e. to pay the cost of the property and monthly installment, interest to be calculated for six months to be adjusted in the monthly installments. The handing over order dt.10.4.91 was served, and on 1.5.91 the property was handed over in pursuance of the said letter. But the complainant to his shock and dismay found that the construction was defective and required rectifications and communicated the same to the opposite party on 9.5.91 itself. But till this date the opposite party never bothered to respond to the same nor did send any reply even. Whileso the opposite party by its letter dated 9.9.91 intimated the complainant that rates of interest and cost of plot has been revised and directed the complainant to pay the same at Rs.1,77,175/- instructing the complainant to pay Rs.2,530/-. Once again on 10.4.92 the opposite party communicated to the complainant stating that the allotment was reconverted from outright purchase to hire purchase scheme hiking the interest from 14% to 15% and also asking the complainant deposit, monthly installments. The Collector released a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as house building advance on 21.9.93 only and the same was remitted by Demand draft with the opposite party on 1.10.93 itself. The receipt by the opposite party was issued on 15.10.93. 2. After a period of four years the opposite party sent a letter dt.31.1.97 to the complainant calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.14,047/- statedly the difference in land cost. The complainant was also called upon to pay the penal interest on the difference amount. Similarly the complainant was forced to pay interest penal interest and difference in price totaling to pay a sum of Rs.58,419/-. The complainant was forced to pay the sums as demanded which was extortionate as else the opposite party threatened that sale deed would not be executed and the allotment would be cancelled. The complainant had paid totally a sum of Rs.3,88,427/- while properly calculated only a sum of Rs.3,30,008/- was due and payable. Therefore the opposite party had illegally, unlawfully and without any basis had collected Rs.58,419/- which is bound to be refunded with interest. The sale deed was executed only on 5.3.03 under threat by the opposite party. But for the payment by the complainant as demanded by the opposite party, the sale deed would not have been executed at all. The complainant has been subjected to a lot of mental agony and anguish by the illegal demands of the opposite party who is guilty of gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and has been put to severe loss. Therefore the complainant prays this Forum for directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.58,419, (excessively collected) with interest at 24% p.a. from 5.3.02 till date of full and final payment, and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in collecting the excess amount ignoring the valid pleas of the complainant and to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of this complaint. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party are as follows: The complaint seeking an order and decree, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.58,419/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 5.3.03 till payment and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the alleged deficiency in service and alleged unfair trade practice in collecting excess amount etc. and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint is not sustainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant has not come forward with correct facts and has approached this Forum with incorrect particulars. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite party already arises out of the contract, i.e. Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complaint is to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. It is true that the complainant applied for allotment of MIG house in Walajapet in March 1991 and the opposite party also confirmed the allotment of the house to the complainant, by a letter dt.8.3.91. At the time of the allotment, the tentative selling price of the house MIG II B 97 was quoted as Rs.1,74,645/-. The conditions of allotment were all enumerated in the regular allotment letter dt.10.4.91 which was issued to the complainant. Originally the complainant opted for the sale of the house under hire purchase scheme. Subsequently at his instance and request, it was converted into outright purchase mode as the complainant wanted to avail Government loan and purchase the same. Accordingly, A and B certificates for getting the tentative cost was subsequently issued. At the time of issue of A and B certificates the tentative cost itself was revised to Rs.1,77,175/-. The complainant also obtained A and B certificates agreeing to remit the full tentative cost of Rs.1,77,175/- within six months period with interest. The said six months period expired on 31.8.91. But the complainant did not avail the loan and remit the amount in time. Hence the opposite party, after waiting for some more time, issued a letter dt.10.4.92, informing the complainant that the allotment of the house referred to above was once again reconverted to hire purchase scheme from outright purchase mode. He was then asked to pay the initial deposit and monthly installments with interest etc. totaling to Rs.76,613/- as on that date. Subsequently, the complainant availed the Government loan and paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- out of Rs.1,77,175/-. He did not pay the balance amount of Rs.37,175/- immediately. The allotment was made in March 1991 and the loan amount was paid only in September 1993. As per the G.O.No.174 dt. 7.2.91 of Housing and Urban Development Department, the Government servants who avail Government loan and purchase the house, have to pay interest from the date of allotment to the date of payment. This amount was also not paid resulting in claim of penal interest over the same. In the meantime, the complainant has also executed the lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the opposite party. 4. Subsequently, the Housing Board fixed the final cost for the above said house and the complainant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,047/- towards the difference in the building cost. He was also informed to pay interest over the said amount from the date of allotment. In case of default on payment of interest he is liable to pay penal interest. The conditions were enumerated both in the conditions of allotment and lease-cum-sale agreement. The complainant having been a party to the said contract, cannot wriggle out of the same and deny such payment as excessive payment. The total amount payable by him in Jan’2003 comes to Rs.3,88,427/-. At the same time, he had actually paid only a sum of Rs.2,85,475/-. In February 2000, the complainant was due to the extent of Rs.1,02,952/-. The details of the amount payable by him and paid by him upto January 2003 are given hereunder. I. AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE COMPLANANT. i. Tentative price of the property Rs.1,77,175 ii. G.O.174 Interest upto Sep. 1993 Rs. 36,909 iii. G.O.174 Penal interest upto Oct’93 Rs. 3,255 iv. Interest from Nov.93 to Feb’03 Rs.1,07,678 v. Difference in building cost Rs. 14,047 vi. 15% interest (Apr’91 to Apr’97) Rs. 12,818 vii. 18% interest (May’97 to Feb’03) Rs. 14,749 viii. Capitalization (Sep.87 to Feb’91) Rs. 21,376 ix. Maintenance Rs. 420 ------------------ Rs.3,88,427/- II . AMOUNT PAID BY THE COMPLANANT. House building advance Rs.1,40,000 Payment (Total) Rs.1,36,000 Interest Rs. 9,475 ----------------- Rs.2,85,475/- III. TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE COMLAINANT IN FEBRUARY 2003. Rs.1,02,952/- In January 2003, the complainant asked for issue of sale deed. At that time, he was directed to pay the said amount of Rs.1,02,952/- with interest and penal interest. Subsequently he was also directed to pay the said sum of Rs.1,02,952/- and also the scrutiny fee for issue of sale deed. Agreeing to the demand made by the opposite party, he issued a letter dt.27.2.03 requesting for issue of sale deed after payment of Rs.1,02,952/- in two installments i.e. Rs.20,699/- on 17.2.03 and Rs.82,253/- on 26.2.03. This payment was made by him in pursuance of the letter sent by the opposite party with working sheet. Satisfied over the legal demand by the opposite party, the complainant on his own, voluntarily paid the said sum of RS.1,02,952/- and also the scrutiny fee etc. The complainant’s letter dt.10.1.03 and 27.2.03 will show that he voluntarily paid the amount, accepting the demand made by the opposite party for issue of the sale deed. On payment of the entire amount, the sale deed was also issued to the complainant. The allegations that the opposite party threatened the complainant and collected the sum of Rs.58,419./- is not correct. The working sheet given above will clearly show that a sum of Rs.58,419/- forms part of the amount due by the complainant. The interest and penal interest are liable to be paid by the complainant as per the contract and conditions of allotment. There is no question of gross deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 5. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant applied for allotment of MIG House in Walajapet in March – 1991 and the opposite party confirmed the allotment of the house to the complainant by a letter Ex.A2 dt. 8.3.91. At the time of allotment, the tentative selling price of the house MIG-II B 97 was collected as Rs.1,74,645/-. Originally, the complainant opted for the sale of house under hire purchase scheme, subsequently at his request it was converted into outright purchase mode as the complainant wanted to avail Government loan. Accordingly tentative cost was revised as Rs.1,77,175/- and intimated to the complainant through a letter Ex.A8, dt. 9.9.1991. The complainant also obtained A and B Certificates agreeing to remit the full tentative cost of RS.1,77,175/- within six months period with interest. But the complainant did not avail the loan and remit the amount within six months. So, the opposite party issued a letter Ex.A9, dt. 10.4.92, informing the complainant that the allotment of the house referred to above was once again reconverted to hire purchase scheme from outright purchase mode. The complainant was then asked to pay the initial deposit and monthly installments with interest etc. totaling to Rs.76,613/- as on that date. Subsequently the complainant availed the Government loan and paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- out of Rs.1,77,175/- on 1.10.93. The complainant was paid final cost of the land and building and the sale deed was also executed on 5.3.03. 8. The complainant contented that after the period of four years the opposite party sent a letter Ex.A12 dt.31.1.97 to the complainant calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.14,047/- statedly the difference in land cost and similarly called upon to pay interest penal interest and difference amount. Similarly the complainant was forced to pay interest, penal interest and difference in price totaling to pay a sum of Rs.58,419/- which is bound to be refunded with interest to the complainant. 9. The opposite party contended that at the time of allotment of the house the complainant executed the lease-cum sale deed agreement Ex.B2, dt. 19.4.91. The total amount payable by him in January ‘ 2003 comes to Rs.3,88,427/-, but he had actually paid only a sum of Rs.2,85,475/-. In February 2000, the complainant was due to the extent of Rs.1,02,952/-. In January 2003 the complainant asked for issue of sale deed, at the time he was directed to pay the said amount of Rs.1,02,952/- with interest and penal interest. Accordingly, he voluntarily paid the said amount in two installments i.e. Rs.20,699/- on 17.2.03 and Rs.82,253/- on 26.2.03 and the sale deed was issued to the complainant. As per the terms and conditions the interest and penal interest liable to be paid by the complainant. Therefore the opposite party threatened the complainant and collected the sum of Rs.58,419/- is not correct. Hence, there is no question of gross deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 10. It is admitted fact that after receiving the intimation of land cost letter Ex.A12, dt.31.1.97 from the opposite party, the complainant has sent a letter Ex.A13, dt. 10.1.03 to the opposite party stating that he is willing to pay the entire balance amount within January 2003 and also he required the details about the final price of the building , plot difference amount, already paid the amount and balance amount. The opposite party has sent a reply letter Ex.A14, dt. 31.1.03, along with the detailed working sheet about the cost of plot, building, the amount paid by the complainant and the balance amount due etc. From the perusal of Ex.A14 dt. 31.1.03. it is mentioned that the total amount Rs.3,88,427/- paid by the complainant Rs.1,02,952/- the complainant was asked to pay the said amount before 28.2.03. Thereafter the complainant has sent a reply letter Ex.A15, dt. 10.2.03 and Ex.B4, dt.27.2.03 to the opposite party. From the perusal of the above said two letters it is mentioned as follows: - 1) ghh;it (1)y; fhZk; fojj;jpd;go vdf;F xJf;fPL bra;ag;gl;l thyhrh jpl;lg;gFjp vk;.I.$p 2 gp tPL vz;.97f;F ehd; brYj;j Btz;oa epYitj; bjhif U}.20,699/-f;fhd (U}gha; nUgjhapuj;J mWE}]w;W bjhz;Z]w;W xd;gJ kl;Lk;) tA;fp bfhLg;ghif vz;.301607 ehs;: 10.2.2003 nj;Jld; nizj;Js;Bsd;. 2) ghh;it (1)y; fhZk; fojj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;sthW, epYitj; bjhif KGtija[k; fPH;f;fz;lthW brYj;jpapUf;fpd;Bwd;. urPJ vz;.089014 ehs; 17.2.2003 : U}. 20,699/- urPJ vz;.089348 ehs; 26.2.2003 : U}. 82,253/- ------------------- bkhj;jk; : U}.1,02,952/- -------------------- tpw;gidg; gj;jpuk; bgWtjw;fhd Ma;t[f; fl;lzk; U}.200/-I urPJ vz;. 089347 ehs; 26.2.2003-y; brYj;jpapUf;fpd;Bwd;. MfBt, vdf;F tpw;gidg; gj;jpuj;ij tHA;FkhW Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. Thereafter, the sale deed Ex.A20 executed to the complainant on 5.3.03. Therefore it is clear that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment order Ex.B1, dt. 10.4.91 and the lease-cum-sale agreement Ex.B2, dt. 19.4.9, the complainant being a Government servant who avail the loan and purchase the house, the opposite party fixed the final cost for the said house, the complainant was directed to pay the difference in the building cost with interest from the date of allotment to the date of payment, and incase of default in payment of interest he has liable to pay penal interest. Accordingly the total amount payable by the complainant in January 2003 comes to Rs.3,88,427/-. In February 2000 the complainant was due to the extent of Rs.1,02,952/- . After satisfied about the detailed working sheet Ex.A14, dt. 31.1.03, the complainant had paid the said amount in two installments i.e. Rs.20,699/- on 17.2.03 and Rs.82,253/- on 26.2.03. After payment of entire amount the opposite party executed the sale deed to the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the opposite party threatened the complainant and collected the sum of Rs.58,419/- is not acceptable. 11. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A22 & Ex.B1 to Ex.B7, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 12. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 13. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 28th day of June 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 7.2.91 - X-copy of G.O.Ms.No.174. Ex.A2- 8.3.91 - X-copy of Allotment order. Ex.A3- 10.4.91 - X-copy of Regular Allotment order and intimation by TNHB. Ex.A4- 10.4.91 - X-copy of No objection Certificates. Ex.A5- 10.4.91 - X-copy of Handing Over Order. Ex.A6- 10.4.91 - X-copy of Taken over report. Ex.A7- 9.5.91 - X-copy of Communication letter by complainant to the o.p. Ex.A8- 9.9.91 - X-copy of intimation letter to the complainant. Ex.A9- 10.4.92 - X-copy of Communication letter by the opposite party. Ex.A10-21.9.93 - X-copy of Proceedings by District Collector, Vellore. Ex.A11- 1.10.93 - X-copy of letter along with demand draft to the opposite party. Ex.A12- 31.1.97 - X-copy of intimation of land cost by opposite party. Ex.A13- 10.1.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A14- 31.1.03 - X-copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant for Payment of balance amount. Ex.A15- 10.2.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant. Ex.A16- 11.2.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant. Ex.A17- 19.2.03 - X-copy of letter by the opposite party. Ex.A18- 22.2.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant. Ex.A19- 27.2.03 - X-copy of letter sent by the complainant for issue of sale deed. Ex.A20- -- - X-copy of sale deed. Ex.A21- -- - X-copy of receipts issued by the opposite party for the payment Of amount. Ex.A22- -- - Calculation Memo by the complainant. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- 10.4.91 - X-copy of Regular Allotment order. Ex.B2- -- - Lease-cum-Sale agreement. Ex.B3- 10.1.03 - Letter written by the complainant to opposite party. Ex.B4- 27.2.03 - Letter written by the complainant to opposite party. Ex.B5- 7.2.91 - X-copy of G.O.Ms.No.174. Ex.B6- 12.12.96 - X-copy of Proceedings by the Managing Director, TNHB, Madras. Ex.B7- 29.9.97 - X-copy of Proceedings by the Managing Director, TNHB, Madras. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
