KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACADU  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                              APPEAL  NO: 578/2009

                     JUDGMENT DATED. 28-08-2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN               : MEMBER

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN                              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                  : MEMBER

Secretary,

Kerala State Housing Board, TVPM,

R/by K.P.Devarajan, Addl. Secretary,               : APPELLANT

(FAC), Kerala State Housing Board,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv:Sri.Saji.S.L.)

          Vs.

1.      Sri.K.Reghupathy,

Chithra House, SP.XIX 287,

AKG Nagar, Pangappara,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(R1 by Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

2.      Secretary to Government,

Housing Department,

Secretariat, TVPM.

                                           JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

Order dated:15-06-2009 in CC.15/07 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram is being assailed in this appeal by the 1^st opposite party.  As per the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions to settle the claim of the complainant under one time settlement as on 19/5/2004 extending all the concessions as per Ext.P5 Government order dated:7/2/2004 for the remaining monthly instalments within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was allotted a flat bearing No.CF 6/219 vide order dated:2/2/1994 of Regional Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram Housing Unit and that the price of the said flat was fixed at Rs.3,37,770/- which was to be remitted for the first time at Rs.1,68,885/- and the remaining at the rate of  Rs.2,907/- per monthly instalments for 13 years. The complainant had preferred an one time settlement based on the Government order dated:7/2/2004 after remitting 90 instalments which came to Rs.2,66,025/- up to 27/9/2001.  As the opposite parties did not respond to the complainant’s request he preferred Writ Petition No.15117/04 before the Hon’ble High Court seeking direction to the 1^st opposite party to consider the request allowing the benefits as per the scheme.  Further case of the complainant was that though the Hon’ble High Court had directed the Housing Board/1^st opposite party to consider the claim within one month from the date of receipt of the order, the opposite party had violated the order of the Hon’ble High Court and did not settle the matter till the filing of the complaint.  Thus, he prayed before the Forum for directions to settle the claim of the complainant and to give calculation details of the amount to be remitted by the complainant based on G.O.dated:7/2/2004 extending all the concessions as per the above said order.

3. Resisting the averments in the complaint the opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant had defaulted payment in the monthly instalments and that necessary default notices were issued to the complainant.  It was also submitted that as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the complainant was intimated the amount for closing the account allowing OTS benefits and also that the complaint was called for a personal hearing and it was due to the non appearance of the complainant that the settlement could not be arrived at.  It was also submitted that the Board was ready to grant eligible benefits as per the OTS if the complainant was ready to remit the amount during the allowed period.

4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 on his side.  The opposite parties examined their Section Officer as DW1 and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.  It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had failed in appreciating the documents and contentions raised by the opposite parties and that the order is liable to be set aside.  It is his very case that the letter marked as Ext.D1 was not appreciated in its proper perspective by the Forum below and also that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.  The still further case of the appellant is that they had complied with the order of the Hon’ble High Court within time by sending Ext.D1 letter and also that it was the complainant who had failed to appear for the personal hearing and that if the complainant had responded to the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party/appellant, the matter could have been settled without any delay.  Contending that the complainant/1^st respondent was at fault in arriving at the settlement, the learned counsel argued for setting aside the order with compensatory cost.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for 1^st respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  It is submitted by him that though the appellant is banking upon Ext.D1, no supporting evidence is produced by them to show that such a letter was issued by the appellant.  It is his case that the said document is a concocted one which could not be considered in evidence.  He has also argued before us that the complainant was not intimated about the amount or that he was called for a personal hearing by the appellant/opposite party.  Canvassing for the position that the order of the Forum below is a well considered one, he argued for the dismissal of the appeal with cost.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the 1^st respondent/complainant and also on perusing the records we find that the opposite party has no case that the 1^st respondent/complainant had not applied for an one time settlement.  It is also noted that as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated:19/5/2005 marked as Ext.P6, the appellant was under directions to consider the claim of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.  Though the appellant claims that the complainant was intimated as per Ext.D1, we could not find any material evidence to support the said case of the appellant/opposite party.  The Forum has rightly observed that no documents are furnished by the opposite party to show that a detailed statement as on 19/5/2004 extending all the concessions as per Ext.P5 was sent to the complainant.  It was also noted that no earnest efforts were taken by the opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant.  It was incumbent on the part of the opposite party/appellant to give a detailed statement as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court extending the benefits of Ext.P5 order dated:7/2/2004 to the complainant by registered post or under some evidence to show that the complainant had received the same.  In the absence of any evidence to show that such an action was taken by the opposite party/appellant we are inclined to uphold the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  We do not find any material to interfere with the order of the Forum below directing the opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant within a reasonable time.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  The order dated:15/6/2009 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.15/07 is confirmed.  It is also directed that the opposite party/appellant shall take every effort to settle the claim within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the appellant will be liable to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1.lakh with 12% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment apart from settling the claim.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER

M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.