Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/241/2019

Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Erode Housing Unit, Rep Executive Engineer & Admn Officer, Soorampatti Noal Road, Erode 9. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna veni W/o Palanisamy, D.No.324/8, Old Housing Unit, Ellis Nagar, Dharmapuram TK, Tirupur Dist - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.J.Paulraj

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                    BEFORE :        Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                PRESIDENT

                                  Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                   MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.241/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.32/2016 on the file of the DCDRC, Erode)

 

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Erode Housing Unit

Rep. by Executive Engineer & Admn. Officer       M/s.M.R.Sheik Abdul Rahim

Soorampatti Naal Road                                              Counsel for

Erode – 9                                                         Appellant / Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

Krishnaveni

W/o. Palanisamy 

D.No.324/8, Old Housing Unit                                  M/s. C.E. Pratap

Ellis Nagar, Dharmapuram Taluk                                 Counsel for

Thirupur District                                               Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.15.3.2018 in CC. No.32/2016.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant had applied for allotment of a flat in the Dharapuram Project of the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.47000/-, and he had been allotted a flat  measuring an extent of 506 Sq.ft., No.MIG 16 on 27.3.2011.  The tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.10,37,000/-.   As per the allotment letter the complainant had to pay 10% of the amount on or before 27.4.2011.  Since the complainant had remitted 10% of the amount viz. Rs.56,700/- on 27.4.2011, he was directed to remit the same alongwith interest.  The complainant had intimated the opposite party that he had applied for obtaining housing loan from LIC.  Therefore the total sale consideration of the flat was fixed at Rs.11,76,000/-.  Accordingly, after deducting a sum of Rs.95000/- which sum had already been paid by the complainant, a further sum of Rs.10,81,000/- had to be paid by him.  On 9.7.2013, by obtaining loan amount from LIC, the complainant had remitted a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-, and on 30.12.2013 he paid a sum of Rs.22300/-.  Thus he remitted the entire sale consideration.  Inspite of remitting the entire amount, the flat was not entrusted to the complainant by the opposite party.  The complainant also had remitted a further sum of Rs.7500/- on 1.10.2014 towards maintenance charges. Since there was no response from the opposite party, the complainant had sent a letter to the opposite party on 30.12.2015 through RTI Act, questioning as to why the flat had not been entrusted to her, for which a reply had been received from the Opposite party stating that the sale consideration of the flat was at Rs.1176000/-, and since the complainant remitted the amount belatedly, she had to pay interest.  Though the amount had been paid in full, the flat had not been entrusted to the complainant, stating that she had to pay further amount for the delayed payment.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite party to deliver the possession of the house, alongwith compensation of Rs.250000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-. 

 

3.       The   Appellants/ opposite parties, though appeared before the District Commission, and filed their written version and proof affidavit, have not filed any documents and failed to file their written arguments, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and thus the District Commission had directed the Appellant/ opposite party to handover the flat within two months and to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.10000/-.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite party filed this appeal.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party had submitted      that the complainant herself had admitted in the complaint that she is ready to pay the default amount.  As per the documents of the complainant it has been established that the cost of the house was fixed at Rs.1176000/-, and there was a delay in remitting the amount by the complainant.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part.   The non filing of written arguments before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       The Respondent/ complainant though appeared through counsel, failed to appear before this commission.  We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

 

6.       Having considered the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that since the appellant/opposite party had diligently filed their written version, for non-filing of written arguments the opposite party need not be penalized.  Therefore, we feel that there is some force in the submission of the appellant/opposite party and a chance may be given to the appellant/ opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission and filing their written arguments, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.15.2.2023 we have directed the appellant/ opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 23.2.2023, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Erode in C.C.No.32/2016 dt.15.3.2018, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Erode, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Erode on 24.3.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/opposite party shall file their written arguments, and put forth their arguments.  The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                        R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT