FA.No.796/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.155/2006  DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

Between:

The Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner

A.P.Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road,

Hyderabad.                                                                                                                   Appellants/

                                                                                                                                      Opposite party

                   A N D

1. G.V.Papi Reddy, S/o.G.Narsimha Reddy

    Aged about 55 years, Indian, Occ:Govt. Service,

    R/o.H.No.2-2-1109/3/1/A/1

    Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013.

2. Mrs.M.Prema Latha, W/o.M.D.Reddy

    Aged about 60 years, Indian, Housewife

    R/o.H.No.2-2-18/18/2, D.D.Colony,

    Hyderabad-500 0013.

3. K.Muralidhar Rao, S/o.late K.Venkaraiah

    Aged about 43 years, Indian, Occ:Govt.Service,

    H.No.1-9-1113/27/3, Vidyanagar,

    Hyderabad-500 044.

4. S.A.Rasheed, S/o.Abdul Rahaman

   Aged about 48 years, Indian, Occ:Govt.Service,

   R/o.H.No.5-14-29/5, Near MIG-81, Indira Nagar,

    Moula-Ali, Hyderabad-500 040.

5. Smt.K.Seetha Kumari W/o.K.Mallikarjun Rao,

    Aged about 42 years, Indian, Housewife,

    R/o.H.No.LIG-B, 28, Dr.A.S.Raonagar,

    Hyderabad.

6. Smt.G.Vijaya Laxmi, W/o.G.Venkat Reddy

    Aged about 42 years, Indian, Housewife,

    R/o.H.No.LIG-B, 502, Dr.A.S.Raonagar,

    Hyderabad.

7. G.Narsimha Reddy S/o.late G.V.Papi Reddy

    Aged about 74 years, Indian, Occ:Agriculturist

    H.No.2-2-1109/3/1/A/1, Bagh Amberpet,

    Hyderabad-500 013

8. Smt.P.Leela Rani, W/o.P.Chandra Kumar

    Aged about 46 years, Indian, Housewife,

    R/o.H.No.LIG-B-201, Dr.A.S.Raonagar,

    Hyderabad.

9. B.Krishnama Chary, S/o.B.Narasimha Chary

    Aged about 48 years, Indian, Occ.Govt. Service,

    H.No.2-108/6/1/A, Plot No.14, ICRISAT Colony,

     Near Suman working Women’s Hostel,

     Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad-500 050.

10. I.David, S/o.Solomon,

      Aged about 52 years, Occ:Govt. Service,

      H.No.7-161, Behind Union Bank,

      Ghatkesar, R.R.District.

11. Smt.L.Sharada, W/o.L.K.V.Rao

      Aged about 35 years, Indian,

      Occ:Housewife, Plot No.104,, E.C.Nagar,

      Cherlapalli, Hyderabad-500 051.

12. C.Raghava Reddy, S/o.C.Surya Reddy

      Aged about 55 years, Indian, Occ:Govt.

      Retd. Employee, H.No.2-2-18/18/2, D.D.Colony

      Hyderabad-500 013.

13. Smt.C.Vijaya Laxmi, W/o.C.Raghava Reddy

      Aged about 51 years, Indian,

      H.No.2-2-18/18/2, D.D.Colony,

      Hyderabad-500 013.                                                                                     ..Respondents/

                                                                                                                             Complainants

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.D.Ranganath Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.

QUORUM:      SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

&

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order( Per Smt.M.Shreesha,Hon’ble Member)
***

          Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.155/2006 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

          The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants on seeing the advertisement of opposite party for construction of houses in various places and estimation of costs of MIG, LIG and EWS or LIG II at Rs.50,000/-, 40,000/- and 15,000/- respectively and the applicants must pay earnest money deposit of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.100/- respectively, complainants 1 to 3 applied for allotment of MIG houses and the remaining complainants applied for allotment of LIG houses.  The complainants 1 to 3 have deposited Rs.1,000/- towards EMD and complainants 4 to 13 paid EMD of Rs.200/- and submitted their applications.  The opposite party asked the willingness of complainants on 2-12-1989 for construction of the same type of houses at Pocharam in R.R.District and the complainants gave their consent.  On 31-1-1994, opposite party informed the complainants that the tentative cost of MIG and LIG houses increased to Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs.87,000/- respectively and asked them to pay 10% of the tentative cost as EMD, if the said proposal was acceptable to the complainants.  The complainants accepted the tentative cost and paid 10% towards EMD and complainants 1 to 3 paid Rs.17,000/- each to opposite party whereas complainants 4 to 13 paid Rs.8,700/- each.  The complainants submitted that opposite party vide letters dated 19-9-2001 and 3-11-2001 informed that a survey was conducted in 1982 for allotment of houses at Uppal, Rajendranagar and Hayathnagar and due to non availability of land, it was proposed to take up at Pocharam and even this proposal could not be taken up and that it was proposed to take construction of HIG/MIG flats at Pocharam with joint collaboration with M/s CESMA International Pvt. Ltd. and asked to convey willingness at tentative cost of Rs.9,00,000/- for HIG and Rs.7,00,000/- for MIG respectively.  The complainants submitted that on 12-11-2001 they submitted a representation to the opposite party requesting to implement the old scheme since they have been waiting for 19 years and issued a reminder on 18-12-2001 as there was no reply, demanded refund of the amounts.  Hence the complaint for refund of the of the amounts along with 18% of interest and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

          Opposite party filed counter contending that the complaint is not maintainable in law or in facts.  They however admitted The facts not in dispute are that the opposite party conducted a demand survey for the housing scheme in the year that in 1982 conducted demand survey for construction of houses in the areas of Uppal, Rajendranagar and Hayathnagar and collected 10% of the cost towards advance EMD.  Due to various reasons, the housing scheme could not be implemented and they decided to refund the EMD amounts to the applicants.  Accordingly copy notification was issued in 2001 calling for advance receipts for refund of the said amounts and another paper notification was made ion 14-10-2004.  Due to various constraints the project at Pocharam also did not materialize and requested the complainants to take back EMD and 10% cost already paid.  Opposite party further submitted that notifications were issued and also personal communications were made to the complainants to take back the EMD and 10% of the cost but the complainants did not choose to take back the EMD when they have intimated in 2001 there is no necessity for the complainants to will till 2003 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A28 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay to complainants 1 and 2 Rs.46,400/- each, complainant No.3 Rs.46,160/-, complainant No.5, Rs.23,341/-, complainant No. 7 Rs.22,959, complainant No.11 Rs.22,704/-, complainant No.13, Rs.23,405/- and complainant Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 Rs.23,086/- each with interest at 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till the date of refund together with costs of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants.

          Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal

The facts not in dispute are that the opposite party conducted a demand survey for the housing scheme in the year 1982 and collected 10% of the cost towards EMD along with the application forms from the complainants.  Subsequently opposite party informed the complainants that the project at Uppal, Rajendranagar and Hayathnagar could not be taken up as the site was not available and as such have proposed to transfer the applications to Pocharam.  The opposite party thereafter on 3-11-2001 vide Ex.A3 addressed a letter to the complainants stating that they had proposed to take up the construction of HIG/MIG under joint collaboration with M/s.CESMA International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore and asked their willingness and the complainants replied vide letter dated 12-11-2001 requesting the opposite party to continue with the old scheme. Since the opposite party went on changing the projects and much time lapsed, the complainants sought for refund of the amount paid by them.  It is the case of the complainants that they waited for more than 19 years without any fault on their side and sought for reasonable compensation.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum erred in awarding the amounts including the interest from the respective dates of deposit and also contended that interest was awarded at 9% p.a. and relied on the decision of the Apex court reported in IV (2005) CPJ 12 (SC) in BIHA STATE HOUSING BOARD v. ARUN DAKSHY in which the Apex court held that the complainants are entitled for simple interest as envisaged in regulation 45 and also set aside the compensation.  The learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to clause 2 of Demand Survey Notification,1982 issued by the appellant in which it is stated as follows:

‘Unless there is a demand for more than 100 houses, it will not

be economically feasible for the Board to take up a schme in cases where less than 100 applications are received or where it is not possible to acquire land within a reasonable price for purpose of construction within a period of 3 years, the Earnest Money Deposit will be refunded.  No interest is payable on this amount’.

We observe from the record that the appellant stated that due to various reasons, they have not been able to take up this project and  it is not their case that there is no demand for more than 100 houses.  Hence we are of the considered view that the project has been denied several times and the complainants have chosen refund of the amounts since the scheme has been cancelled.   The learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo stating that this Commission directed them to pay the amounts deposited by the complainants along with interest at 9% p.a. from the dates of deposit till 31-1-2007 to the complainants directly  as stated in the Statement of account filed and that they have paid the amounts directly in compliance of the order of this Commission in F.A.I.A.No.2846/06  dated 29-1-2007.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and modify the order of the District Forum by directing the appellant to pay the amount deposited by the complainants with interest at 9% p.a. from the dates of deposit till 31-1-2007 and as the said amounts have already been paid we direct the appellant to pay  the balance amount to the complainants.  There shall no order as to costs.

Sd/

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                                           15-10-2009