KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.18/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 31.5.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The Secretary, : APPELLANT Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuam. (By Adv.Saji.S.L) Vs. 1. Sri.K.Mohanan Pillai, : RESPONDENTS Madasseril Tharayil, Adinadu North, Kulasekharapuram, Kolloam. (By Adv.G.S.Prakaksh) 2. The Secretary, Grama Panchayat, Kulasekharapuram, Kollam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/Housing Board in CC.No.148/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.6500/- with interest at 13.5% from the date of agreement till the date of payment with compensation of Rs.6000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. It is also stipulated that the compensation is to be shared equally by the 2nd opposite party Grama panchayat and the 1st opposite part/ appellant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was selected as a beneficiary under the Peoples Plan Project and as per the scheme he remitted Rs.6,500/- and the 2nd opposite party Grama panchayat a sum of Rs.6000/- to the Housing Board. The scheme was to provide a grant of Rs.28,000/- for constructing low budget houses not exceeding 50.sq.meters and to be disbursed in three stages. He was not given the instalments on the ground that the plinth area exceeded 50.sq.meters. It is contended by the opposite parties that foundation of the house of the complainant exceeded 50.sq.meters limit and hence as per the scheme the amount could not be sanctioned. It was on account of the fact that the complainant exceeded the permitted limit of the plinth area that the amount was not released. 3. 2nd opposite party supported the case of the complainant in the version filed. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 , RW1; Exts. P1 to P3, C1, D1 to D10. 5. It was found as per Ext.C1 report of the Commissioner which was proved by PW2 the Commissioner that the plinth area of the construction of the complainant amounted to 53.45 sq.meters. The opposite parties have produced the relevant Circular in the matter. As per the Circular dated 9.8.99 only, the plinth area was enhanced to 50.sq.meter ie,538 sq.ft. Earlier it was 35 sq.meters. Evidently the scheme was meant for the poor. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have provided the above grant to others who have exceeded the stipulated plinth area also. PW2 the Commissioner has noted that one Sadanandan’s house had a plinth area of 52 sq. meters. The Forum has observed that the opposite parties have failed to establish that the complainant was properly informed as to the limit of the plinth area. It is admitted that the opposite party/appellant did not refund the amount remitted by the complainant ie, Rs.6500/- which was admittedly remitted on 31.7.2000. It is the case of the complainant that 2nd opposite party Panchayath also did not take any steps to see that the amount is returned. 6. We find that although the appellant cannot be blamed for not releasing grant amount to the complainant as as per the relevant Circular the plinth area should not exceed 50sq.meters. All the same they are bound to return the sum paid by the complainant. Hence in this regard there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The Forum has directed to return the amount with interest at 13.5.% from the date of agreement till the date of payment. It was pointed out there is no agreement in the matter and hence the above mentioned of the order is modified as follows: the 1st opposite party will pay Rs.6500/- to the complainant with interest at 13.5% from the date of the complaint till the date of payment. The rest of the order is sustained. 7.In the result the appeal is allowed in part. Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
