BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1173/2008 against C.C. 24/2007, Dist. Forum, Kadapa
Between:
1) The Vice Chairman & Managing Director
A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa
Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad.
2) The Executive Engineer
A.P. Housing Board, Krishna Nagar
Kurnool Region, Hyderabad.
3) The Deputy Executive Engineer
A.P. Housing Board,
Korrapadu Road, PDTR Post
Kadapa Dist.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
P. Chinnaiah, S/o. P. Subbaiah
Age: 60 years, Retd. Work Inspector
D.No. 11/30, Nabikota, Kadapa. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s. D. Ranganath Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party A.P. Housing Board against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 28,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 5,000.- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he joined as a member in MIG-II phase-3 for purchase of a house. He paid Rs. 28,500/- on 21.9.1996 along with application form towards 10% EMD. As per terms he has to pay 50% or 30% of the arrived amount and the remaining 50% or 70% as the case may be, should be paid once in three months in instalments. The price was fixed at Rs. 2, 85,000/-. He paid Rs. 14,200/- towards 5% of the EMD on 27.1.1997. He was allotted house No. 183 on 17.7.1998. He was asked to pay second instalment of 15% of the down payment and the same was paid on 22.9.1999. Though construction of house was completed when he asked for physical possession of the house the board informed that the cost was revised from Rs. 2,85,000/- to Rs. 3,69,000/- and demanded to pay additionally Rs. 47,400/-. There was no clause wherein the board could revise the price of the building. When he represented the fact before the District Legal Services Authority the board informed that he had to pay Rs. 3,04,185/- . He paid Rs. 57,000/- towards part payment. Later the board by paper notification in Vartha daily on 27.3.2006 published that the house would be auctioned and despite his request to cancel the auction notice they did not do so and asked him to participate in the auction for which he did not agree. Again he went to Dist. Legal Service Authority. The matter was closed with a direction to approach the proper forum. Therefore he filed the complaint directing the board to handover physical possession of house after receiving final cost of Rs. 2,85,000/- or else pay Rs. 28,500/- with interest and Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for mental harassment, Rs. 1 lakh towards expenses incurred in this regard and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
3) The appellant board resisted the case. While admitting that on payment of Rs. 28,500/- on 21.9.1996 towards 10% of tentative cost in the draw of lots on 17.7.1998 he was allotted house No. 183 LIG at Proddatur. Later the cost was enhanced to Rs. 3, 69,000/-. Therefore he was directed to pay differential amount of Rs. 47,400/- in order to enable it to hand over possession. As per rules they were empowered to increase the cost of the house taking into consideration actual expenditure incurred. While it was again reduced to Rs. 3, 04,185/-. When he approached the Dist. Legal Services Authority he was directed to pay differential amount. He had paid Rs. 85,500/- towards difference of amount. When he sought for reduction of final cost by approaching the Vice-Chairman, his request was not agreed. He was directed to pay 40% cost of the house based on final cost in order to hand over possession. He successfully evaded paying 40% of the cost despite grace period. Due to non-payment allotment was cancelled and was put to auction. Due to cancellation of the allotment, the amount paid by them were refunded, duly deducting 10% notified cost. The complainant was also refunded an amount of Rs. 57,500/- vide cheque dt. 4.4.2006 which was acknowledged by him. The said house was put to auction on 27.3.2006. The complainant was allowed to participate in the auction as he was reluctant to remit Rs. 10,000/- towards EMD which is the pre-requisite for participating in the auction. He has no locus standi to demand delivery of physical possession of the house as he did not pay 40% cost of the house. He had taken back the EMD on 4.4.2006 after deducting 10% notified cost, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A14 marked while the appellant board filed the affidavit evidence of its Executive Engineer and did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant board was liable to pay Rs. 28,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from 15.2.2006 till the date of realization besides Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant board preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the claim was barred by limitation as he was challenging the order dt. 9.9.2004. By virtue of Regulation 7(vii) of A.P. Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS houses and flats) Regulations, 1997 in case the allottee after allotment of house fails to pay further amounts as demanded by the Housing Board, EMD deposit shall be refunded duly forfeiting 50% of the amount paid by the applicant or 15% of the cost of the notified house whichever is less. As per original regulation 15% of the notified cost should have been forfeited however as on the date of cancellation G.O. Ms. No. 62 have come into force and per the amended provision it had forfeited only 10% of the notified cost. Therefore it prayed that the order of the Dist. Forum be set-aside.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is not in dispute that the complainant had paid Rs.85,500/- towards purchase of a house No.183 in MIG Phase-3 of Proddatur. Initially, the sale consideration fixed was at Rs.2,85,000/-. The complainant had deposited Rs.85,500/- as against Rs.2,85,000/-. In fact he has already deposited 10% of Rs.2,85,000/- and also further amount of 57,000/-. Later the Board revised the sale consideration to Rs.3,69,900 and the board directed him to pay 40% towards down payment of the revised amount. Since he did not pay, his allotment was cancelled.
9) Now the complainant intends that an amount of Rs.28,500/- namely, 10% of the total cost which was forfeited be refunded to him. It is not in dispute that an amount of 57,000/- was refunded forfeiting the balance amount of Rs.28,500/-. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 8-9-2001, the Housing Board can forfeit 5% of the earnest money deposit 5% of Rs.85,500/-, (the amount deposited), is Rs.4,275/-, if Rs.4,275/- is deducted from Rs.28,500/-, the Board has to still pay Rs.24,225/-. Consequently the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant to pay Rs.24,225/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 15-2-2006 till the date of realization. The rest of the order of the District Forum is confirmed.
10) In the result this appeal is disposed of by modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the appellant to pay Rs.24,225/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 15-2-2006 till the date of realization. The rest of the order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.10-11-2010
