Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/422/2022

S.Sakunthala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager (Marketing and Services) - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

27 Apr 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.422/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.10/2018 on the file of the DCDRC, Erode)

 

      DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF APRIL 2023  

 

S. Sakunthala

W/o.  Shanmugam

No.46, Kollampalayam

Vellavedu Village, Erode – 2

 

Rep. by her Power of Attorney

P. Krishnamoorthy

S/o. Periyasamy

Door No.248, Kollampalayam

Housing Board Unit                                                        In person

Erode – 638 002                                                   Appellant / Complainant

                                                         Vs.

 

The Manager

(Marketing & Services)

Erode Housing Unit

Tamilnadu Housing Unit                                      M/s. M.R.Sheik Abdul Rahim

Soormpatti Naal Road                                                  Counsel for

Erode – 9                                                           Respondent/ Opposite party

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.5.9.2022 in CC.No.10/2018.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 9.3.2023, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant in person and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant, as against the order of the District Commission, Erode, dt.5.9.22 in CC.No.10/2018 praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

 

2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is as follows:

          The complainant viz. S.Sakunthala has applied for allotment of LIG house bearing No.D46, situated at Kollampalayam, Erode, measuring to an extent of 1246 sq.ft.  She has applied for the said flat, pursuant to GO.2(D).No.63, Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development (Tamil Nadu Housing Board 4(2) Department, dt.3.4.1998.  As per the said Government Order, the complainant has to pay the entire cost towards the house.  She has paid the entire amount on 27.3.2013.  Further she had also filed an affidavit on 25.4.2013, stating that she had paid the entire amount, and if there is any further balance to be made, she will pay the said amount also.  While so the Respondent had sent a letter dt.7.11.2013, confirming that entire payment made by the complainant.  Further in the said letter, the opposite party had stated that a draft sale deed had been made ready, and asked the complainant to come and collect the draft sale deed, and type the same in a stamp paper to enable them to register the same in her favour.  Though the complainant had approached the opposite party on several occasions, they have not handed over the draft sale deed.  While so on 18.9.2017, the opposite party had issued a notice asking the complainant to pay a further amount of Rs.4,20,323/-.  On seeing the said notice, the complainant was put into severe mental agony.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 12.12.2017 and 13.12.2017, calling upon the opposite party to register the sale deed in her favour within 15 days.  Though the said notice was received, the opposite party had not chosen to send any reply.  Though the complainant had approached the opposite party on several occasions, with request to register the sale deed, they have not come forward to do the same.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed the complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite party to register the sale deed of the house at Door No.46, at Kollampalayam, in favour of the complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.150000/- towards compensation alongwith cost. 

 

3.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite party, by filing their written version as follows:

          The opposite party had admitted that the complainant had allotted the LIG flat No.D46 at Kollampalayam scheme.  But it is denied that the complainant had paid the entire amount of the said flat.  The complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.420323/-.  Since the entire sale consideration has not been remitted, the sale deed has not been executed.  Therefore, there is no deficiency service on their part.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.       In order to prove the complaint, before the District Commission, proof affidavits were filed on either side, alongwith documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to A16 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B6 on the side of the opposite party. 

 

5.       The District Commission, after analysing the entire documents and the submissions on eitherside, had been dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the complainant had not proved that she had paid the entire sale consideration.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present appeal is filed by the complainant as appellant herein. 

 

6.       Before this commission, the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant had submitted that she had been allotted a flat measuring 1246 sq.ft in the opposite parties LIG scheme at Kollampalayam, Erode.   The complainant had paid the entire sale consideration, and also had undertaken to pay the balance amount if any.    The opposite  party had also confirmed that the entire payment had been made   by way of letter dt.7.11.2013 and they asked the complainant to collect the draft sale deed, by making the stamp paper ready.  While so, the opposite party by way of letter dt.18.9.2017 had issued notice to the complainant to remit the balance amount of Rs.4,20,323/- for executing the sale deed.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and thus prayed for allowing the complaint. 

 

7.       The learned counsel for the Respondent/ opposite party would contend that though they have informed vide letter dt.7.11.2013 confirming the payment, subsequently on verification, the opposite party came to know that a sum of Rs.4,20,323/- was due to be paid by the complainant.   Therefore, they have not come forward to execute the sale deed.  In fact by Ex.A10, a letter dt.18.9.2017   calculation had been sent by the opposite party stating that there is an outstanding of Rs.4,20,323/-.   Therefore, the complainant cannot take advantage of the letter under Ex.A4 dt.12.3.2013, stating that the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

 

8.       Having considered the submissions made, a perusal of documents under Ex.A10 a detailed calculation with regard to the due amount to be paid by the complainant would show clearly that there was an outstanding of Rs.420323/- as on 30.9.2017.  It was also clearly stated that if the said amount had not been paid on or before 30.9.2017, further interest will be charged till date of payment from 1.10.2017.  As per the above statement the total outstanding as on 30.9.2017 including the balance principal amount, different in land cost, interest on balance etc., works out to Rs.6,13,629/-.  But the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.1,93,306/- so far.  As per the Government order the relief had been given on penal interest, interest on capitalization and interest on difference in cost.  As per Ex.A10, without calculating the interest as per the Government Order, the outstanding was shown as Rs.6,13,629/-.  The land was allotted to the complainant in year 1998.   Therefore there would definitely be a cost escalation when she sought for execution of sale deed in the year 2013.  Hence by taking advantage of the letter under Ex.A4, dt.12.3.2013,   the complainant cannot claim that he has no due.   Since the sale consideration had not been paid in full,  we cannot find fault on the part of the opposite party for non-execution of sale deed.  Therefore, we are of the opinion no case has been made out warranting this commission to interfere with the order of the District Commission, in dismissing the complaint.  Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

9.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission, Erode, in CC.No.10/2018 dt.5.9.2022.  There is no order as to cost throughout.

 

 

 

          R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                        R. SUBBIAH

                    MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT