Date of Filing      : 02.02.2018

                                                                                                                               Date of Disposal: 13.06.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                       .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                 ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com,                                                                          ….. MEMBER-II

 CC. No.18/2018

THIS MONDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr.A.Subramanian,S/o.S.Alavandar,

No.14T.A Koil Street forth Extension,

Villivakkam, Chennai -49.                                          ……Complainant.

                                                 //Vs//

The Executive Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Tirumazhisai Satelite Town Division,

Tirumazhisai, Chennai -56.                                       …..opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                               :   Mr.S.A.Sarangabani , Advocate.

Counsel for the  opposite party                           : Exparte

 This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.S.A.Sarangabani Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite party was set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to execute the registration of sale deed of the plot in favour of the complainant as he had paid the entire money and to restrain the opposite party from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the complainant as per the contract and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this case.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

The crux of the complaint is that the complainant herein approached the opposite party and requested for buying a plot under the Low Income Group Scheme and the opposite party accepted the request and allotted plot No.26 in Perumalpet phase II.  The complainant had paid Rs.63,200/- being 40% of the actual cost for the plot as the advance amount and the remaining amount was to be paid in 60 monthly installments of Rs.1400/- and as such the remaining sum was paid in installment from December 2006 and the final installment was also paid up to November 2012, for 73 months as per the opposite party’s mode of selling the plots. After receiving all the contracted dues the possession was handed over to complainant by the opposite party on 21.02.2017. However, the opposite party demanded more amount towards the cost of the plot i.e. Rs.3,88,883/- as against the agreed cost of the plot i.e. Rs.1,58,000/- in 2006.  Complainant refused to pay the excess amount and hence a letter dated 08.01.2018 was issued by the opposite party stating “Why the plot cannot be grabbed from complainant if he refuses to pay the excess amount as stated by the opposite party”.  The complainant submits that as per the law contract and Specific Relief Act, he is entitled for registration of the plot for the agreed amount.

Inspite of sufficient notice the opposite party did not appear and did not file the written version and hence they were set exparte on 18.09.2018. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit along with documents marked as Ex. A1 to A7 was filed.

Point for consideration:

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in demanding excess amount than the agreed amount fixed at the time of allotment of plot for registering the plot and if so what relief he is entitled to?

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in proof of his submissions;

1. The allotment letter by the opposite party in favour of the complainant dated 27.11.2006 was marked as Ex.A1.  In the allotment letter it is stated that the complainant was allotted the LIG Plot No.26 at Sevvapet phase II Scheme subject to rules and conditions prescribed in the application/ prospectus and that the tentative cost of the plot is fixed at 1,58,000/- and also that the advance amount Rs.63,200/- has been paid on 22.11.2006, the balance to be paid in sixteen monthly installments;
2. Receipt dated 15.11.2012 for Rs.9,800/- issued by the opposite party under the caption “principal dues from allottee” was filed as Ex.A2;
3. The plan showing the plot mentioning the extent of the plot was marked as Ex.A3 which is the proof for the handing over of the plot to the complainant by the opposite party;
4. The letter No. TSTD/A3/734/2016 dated 15.03.2017 was filed as Ex.A4, the said letter intimates the complainant to pay an additional amount of Rs.3,31,252/- as on 15.03.2017 to be paid by him;
5. The reply letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party for Ex.A4 is marked as Ex.A5 in which the complainant had stated that the opposite party should not have sold the disputed lands and requesting for the issuance of sale deed as per the allotment procedure;
6. The notice issued by the opposite party stating that the complainant was due to pay an additional amount of Rs.3,88,543/- and hence why he should not be vacated from the allotted plot was marked as Ex.A6;
7. The news paper advertisement issued by the opposite party with regard to inviting application for allotment of plots under the Phase III Scheme 2016 was marked as Ex.A7.

        Heard the arguments advanced by Complainant and also perused the written arguments filed by him.  The allotment letter issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant clearly states that the cost of the plot fixed at Rs.1,58,000/- is only “Tentative” and the mode of allotment is only by lease cum sale agreement.   The complainant has taken possession of the plot and has been enjoying the same till date.  In such circumstances when the complainant had not agitated but accepted for the word “Tentative” in the allotment letter dated 27.11.2006, Ex.A1 now he cannot go back and refuse to pay the additional cost fixed by the opposite party.  It is clearly mentioned in the document Ex.A4 that the final price of land for the allotted plot would not be fixed at due to pending land acquisition cases at various courts and the land cost is depending on the final settlement of court cases and hence an additional amount of Rs.3,31,252/- as on 30.09.2001 for the plot allotted to the complainant was to be paid.  The complainant though had contended that the contract was in 1997 and the extra cost was demanded in 2016 which amounted to unfair trade practice, we are unable to accept such contention for the reason that the sale deeds could be executed in favour of the allottees only after settlement of all issues and fixation of final price for the land, which took a long period for the opposite party.

We find our view supported by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Service Society & Anr dated 4 March, 2011  wherein it has been clearly given as follows;

“22. Whenever allotments are made even before the completion of the development of land and construction, necessarily the cost that is shown by the authority or the board will be tentative. In regard to the land cost, there may be claims for enhancement of compensation before the reference court with appeals to high court and this court. Sometimes the entire process may take 10 to 15 years and till that process is concluded the final cost of the land cannot be determined. An allottee cannot therefore say that the authority cannot increase the cost after 12 years. Similarly cost of developing of land into residential area requires coordination with different contractors engaged for laying roads, laying drains, developing parks and playgrounds, drawing electricity lines, water lines, sewerage lines etc. Many times, disputes with the contractors lead to delays and litigation. Sometimes though the work may be completed within three years, the settlement of bills and ascertainment of cost may take several years. There may also be encroachments, which will have to be removed which apart from being time consuming and involving litigation, delay the development and finalization of cost of development. As a consequence, the development cost may also shoot up beyond the estimate on account of delays, additional claims of contractors, litigations and other factors. The same applies to the cost of construction of the houses also. Therefore an allottee cannot contend that the increase, if any, should be determined within three years and if the increase is not so determined, the tentative cost would itself become the final cost. Such an interpretation of clause 17 would be illogical and unreasonable. If the Board is able to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay in deciding the final price and that it was beyond its control to determine the final cost earlier (or within three years) it will be entitled to final cost even if the claim is delayed by a few years. The allottee cannot refuse to pay it merely on the ground of delay.

The argument advanced by the complainant that the terms of contract is binding on the parties and he is entitled for specific performance of contract is also to be brushed aside for the reason that in the Consumer Commission the procedure followed is in a summary manner and if at all the complainant wanted a relief of specific performance he has to approach the Civil Court under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963.

The arguments advanced by the complainant that the word “Tentative Cost” is against natural justice and ethics and the same has to be struck down under Article 13 of the Constitution is not to be appreciated by this Commission as the appropriate Forum would be the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for entertaining such relief.

In the result, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in claiming an enhanced amount against the cost fixed Tentatively at the time of allotment of plot in 2006.  Thus we answer the point accordingly as against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party.  Merely for the reason that the opposite party had remained exparte the complainant cannot succeed his case when it is an established position of law that the Housing Development Authority can claim enhanced cost when the cost fixed at the time of allotment is done only in a tentative manner.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13^th day of June 2022.

      Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

 MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

      Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT