Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/492/2004

R.Vijaya Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tamil Nadu Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Benjamin George

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  03.09.2003

                                                                        Date of Order :  10.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.492/2004

THURSDAY THIS 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017

R. Viayakumar I.A.S.,

At HIG Flat 110/F1,

Type A under 27 HIG Flat Scheme,

Valmiki Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur,

Chennai.                                                                .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Rep. by its Chairman,

No.331, Anna Salai, Nandanam,

Chennai 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer &

Administrative Officer,

Besant Nagar Division,

48, Lattice Bridge Road,

Adayar, Chennai 600 020.

 

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Valmiki Nagar TNHB Flats Scheme,

H-104/G4 TNHB Flats,

First Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar,

Chennai 600 041.

 

4. Ms/. Sathyamoorthy & Co.,

Engineering Contractors,

Having its Head Office at

40-D, Surya Gardents, Trichy Road,  

Namakkal 637 001 and

Its Branch Office,

H-21/G1, Breeze Apartments,

Thiruvallur Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.             .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                :  M/s. F.B.Benjamin George  

Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3   :  M/s. V. Yuvakumar

Counsel for the opposite party-4      :   M/s. D.Selvaraju & another   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of  Rs.1,20,578/- and also to pay sum of Rs.75,525/ towards rectifying the defects and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he is an allottee of HIG flat bearing No.110/F1 type A under 27 HIG Flat Scheme at Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai by 1^st opposite party.    The cost of the flats was fixed at Rs.24,00,000/-.   The 1^st opposite party assured to hand over the flat positively before February 2002.   The complainant paid the sale consideration for total sum of Rs.19,50,000/- as on 6.12.2001 out of the total cost of Rs.24,00,000/-.  Accordingly the complainant paid the entire balance sale consideration by a single cheque on 13.2.2002 for Rs.4,50,000/-.  Further the complainant state that he actually took possession of the flat that was handed over to him on 24.6.2002 based on order contained in letter No.A1/3099/2011, dated 7.6.2002.  Even at that point of time the1st opposite party did not make any claim that there is a balance and the letter reflects  details of full payment.   However, later when the complainant orally requested the opposite party to execute the sale deed in his favour, the  1^st opposite party contended that the sale deed would be executed only after payment of balance cost.    The complainant further submit that  he received a reply in letter No.A1/3099/2001 on 19.9.2002 according to which a sum of Rs.1,18,253/- was due from the complainant as on 30.9.2002 for the flat and that the sale deed could be registered only after three years.   Left with no other alternative the complainant was compelled to arrange a loan with great difficulty and additionally paid Rs.1,15,000/- on 28.10.2002 and Rs.3,118/- on 31.10.2002.   Thus the opposite party has improperly and without basis collected an extra amount of Rs.1,18,118/- from the complainant and the 1^st opposite party is liable to repay the said amount along with  loan costs incurred of Rs.2,460/- with interest.    The complainant also state that he paid the entire sale consideration on 12.2.2002 and as stated above paid an excess amount of Rs.1,18,118/-.   On 6.12.2001 in letter No.A1/3099/01, the 1^st opposite party has issued “No objection certificate” after recording full and final settlement of dues.  

2.     Further the complainant state that  there are several defects in construction namely very poor quality of materials used for construction like sanitary, plumbing.  Electrical fittings and fixtures, bath room materials etc.   are os sub standard and the complainant was constrained to rectify the same.   The complainant issued letter to the opposite parties for rectifying such  defects.      The opposite parties have not responded for the same. As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the opposite parties  1 to 3   are as follows:

        The opposite parties denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties state that the complainant has applied for allotment of a HIG Deluxe flat under Hire Purchase system option III.  Under this option III the complainant has to pay 40% of the price as I.D. amount of Rs.9,77,000/- before 30.5.2001 and the balance amount of Rs.14,23,000/- (Rrs.24,00,000/- - Rs.9,77,000/-) with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. in the equated monthly installment of Rs.20,335/- for a period of 15 years commencing from 1.4.2002.  Even though the complainant has opted for allotment of the flat under Hire Purchase system option III, the complainant has paid the cost of the flat in lumpsum as follows: 

        On 14.5.2001      Rs.13,00,000/-

        On 23.8.2001      Rs.  5,00,000/-

        On  3.8.2001      Rs.  1,50,000/-

        On 18.2.2002      Rs.  4,50,000/-

The opposite parties state that the complainant has been informed in the office letter dated 27.3.2004 that the flat is made ready for occupation w.e.f. 31.3.2002 and to execute the Lease cum Sale Agreement before taking over the flat.   Number of allottees have taken over the flats during the month of April 2002.  Since the complainant has changed the system of payment and paid the amount in lump sums in four installments which comes under option II, for the purpose of calculation, as in the case of other allottees who have paid the amount in four installment,s the option II was adopted in the case of the complainant also.  As per the working sheet prepared the allottee has to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,253/- as on 30.9.2002 towards the interest charges for the belated payments.   The balance amount has been intimated to the complainant vide office letter No.A1/3099/2001 dated 19.9.2002.  Even though the complainant has executed the Lease-cum-sale Agreement on 9.4.2002, he did not take over the possession of the flat.   In the letter dated 14.5.2002, the complainant has informed that the marble slabs numbering about seven are with crack marks.  Hence the matter was referred to the Centre for Geo – Science and Engineering, Anna University, Chennai and their report was obtained.  In their letter dated 23.5.2002 it has been concluded that “ the veins which occur in slabs A3, A4, A8, B2, C1 and C2 are natural and are not artificial cracks that have developed during transportation or during laying of slabs.   After obtaining the above report from the Anna University regarding the Deluxe Flat Nol.110/F1 at Valmiki Nagar the handing over order was issued on 7.6.2002 and the same was taken over by the complainant on 24.6.2002.   Hence the delay, if any in the handing over of the flat is not because of the opposite parties.   At the time of handing over of the flat by the opposite parties the complainant has not made any objection either about any defects in the flat or fitness for occupation.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 4^th  opposite party  is  as follows:

          The 4^th opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.      This opposite party is not aware of the price fixed for the flats and the payments made thereon as alleged in the para 1 on the complaint, and the handing over of the flat to the complainant herein.   The opposite party state that the facts alleged in para 2 & 3 of the complaint are out of his knowledge and the opposite party is not a party to those facts.    This opposite party had constructed the building specified by the opposite parties 1 to 3.   The opposite party agreed to make payment to the complainant and states that this opposite party had never entered into any contract or agreement with the complainant for any changes.    This opposite party also denies the allegation and does not have knowledge that the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties agreed to substitute the materials and also denies that the opposite party agreed to adjust the cost of the material which was originally contemplated in the agreement.    The opposite party executed the work in perfection has entered in contract with the 1^st opposite party and the opposite parties 1 to 3 having satisfied with the work of this opposite party had given completion certificate and the opposite party had handed over the completed flat to the opposite parties 1 to 3.  This opposite party denies the allegation in para 11 as false and submits that there is no amount due to be paid to the complainant as this opposite party does not have any privities of contract between the complainant and this opposite party.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and no document marked  on the side of the opposite parties.  

7.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,578/- as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,525/ towards rectifying the defects as prayed for ?.

 

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony as prayed for with cost as prayed for ?

 

8. POINTS 1 to 3:

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  Admittedly the opposite parties Tamil Nadu Housing Board has constructed 27 numbers of HIG Deluxe three bed room flats with lift facility at Valmiki Nagar, Chennai.   Due advertisement also made in newspapers giving four types of option for the public to purchase the flats under first served basis.   The complainant applied for allotment of HIG “A” type flat No.110/F1 under 27 HIG Deluxe flats scheme at Valmiki Nagar vide his application No.13748, dated 8.5.2001.  The complainant opted to purchase the flat under option-3.   Considering the application of the complainant the opposite parties Tamil Nadu Housing Board allotted flat No.110/F1 vide allotment order No.A1/3099/01, dated 14.5.2001.   The cost of the Flat is Rs.24,00,000/-.   As per option-3 the complainant has to pay 40% of the price as I.D. amount of Rs.9,77,000/- before 30.5.2001.   The balance amount of Rs.14,23,800/- with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. should be paid within the period of 15 years commencing from 1.4.2002 at the rate of Rs.20,335/- per month as per Ex.A1.  

9.     The learned counsel for the complainant contended that  as per Ex.A1 flat No.110/F1 is allotted and the 1^st opposite party assured to handover the flat positively on or before February 2012.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- on 6.12.2001.  But as per Ex.A1 allotment the complainant opted 3^rd category of payment namely initial payment of Rs.9,77,000/- and thereafter EMI at the rate of 20,335/- for 15 years.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that he has paid a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- on 7.5.2001 instead of Rs.9,77,000/-.   Similarly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.7.2001 and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.8.2001 which is totally against the option given by the complainant  in relation with the payment.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that he has paid balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on 13.2.2002 by way of cheque.  The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that he took possession only on 24.6.2002 as per letter dated 7.6.2002 and requested the opposite party to execute the sale deed.   On 9.9.2002 the opposite party issued letter claiming a sum of Rs.1,18,253/- towards the balance payment and the sale deed will be executed only after three years.   The complainant founding no other option paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 28.10.2002.  The complainant is claiming  a sum of Rs.1,18,118/- together with the expenditure of Rs.2,460/- totaling Rs.1,20,578/-  with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. since the opposite parties without any reason collected towards excess amount. 

10.    The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant opted 3^rd type of payment and come forward to pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- on 30.5.2001 instead of Rs.9,77,000/-.   Thereafter the complainant has not followed his option of 3^rd type and paid the entire cost price of the flat.   As per option-3 the complainant has to pay initial amount of Rs.9,77,000/- and thereafter EMI of Rs.20,335/- for 15 years from 1.4.2002. Since the complainant opted 3^rd option system, the complainant is liable to pay interest on the cost price of the flat for Rs.13,23,800/-.  On calculation the balance  interest due to be paid comes to an extent of Rs.1,18,118/-.  Since the complainant paid the amount the opposite parties executed due sale deed as per the Tamil Nadu Housing Board norms.   The claim of Rs.1,20,000/- by the complainant is imaginary and is against true fact.  The complainant voluntarily opted the 3^rd option system and violated.  Hence the complainant is required to pay interest amount.  

11.      The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that there are several defects in construction namely very poor quality of materials used for construction like sanitary, plumbing.  Electrical fittings and fixtures, bath room materials etc. are of sub standard and the complainant was constrained to rectify the same.   The complainant issued letter Ex.A3 for rectifying such defects.   The opposite parties have not responded for the same.   The complainant expended a huge sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards such repairs in the presence of 4^th opposite party.  But there is no iota of evidence in this case.   Except Xerox copy of statement of account furnished by the site Supervisor of the 4 & 5^th opposite parties corrected by the Site Engineer of the opposite parties 1 to 3.   But none of the opposite parties agreed for the same.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that there is no deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties.   The alleged defects are imaginary.   The list showing the rectification of the defects are without knowledge of the opposite parties by the complainant for his better convenience.      

12.    The leaned counsel for  the complainant contended that due to such deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties by collecting huge amount towards interest for no reason and sub standard of construction the complainant was put to great mental agony and hardship.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service.  But on a careful perusal of the entire records the alleged deficiency of service is imaginary.   The complainant also has not established the alleged mental agony in such a logical manner.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled for any relief  in this complaint and the points 1 to 3 are  answered accordingly.

        In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  10^th   day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-  15.5.2001 - Copy of letter intimating Hire Purchase Allotment.

Ex.A2- 6.12.2001  - Copy of letter issued by TNHB along with the B certificate.

Ex.A3- 12.2.2002  - Copy of letter addressed by the Manager, Marketing

                               & Service, TNHB.

 

Ex.A4- 27.3.2002  - Copy of letter issued by the Manager, Marketing &

                              Service, TNHB.

 

Ex.A5- 14.5.2002  - Copy of letter sent by the complainant.

 

 

Ex.A6- 7.6.2002    - Copy of letter of handing over of possession issued by

                              TNHB.

 

Ex.A7- 7.6.2002    - Copy of letter of handing over of possession issued by

                              TNHB.

 

Ex.A8- 24.6.2002  - Copy of Handing over report.

 

Ex.A9- 24.6.2002 - Copy of letter sent by the complainant.

 

Ex.A10- 11.9.2002         - Copy of letter sent by the complainant.

 

Ex.A11- 19.9.2002         - Copy of letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

 

Ex.A12- 19.3.2002         - Copy of legal notice.

 

Ex.A13-       -       - Copy of statement of claim for H-110/F1.

 

Ex.A14-       -       - Copy of notice sent to TNHB.

 

Ex.A15- 22.9.2002         - Copy of letter of the complainant addressed to TNHB.

 

Ex.A16-       -       - Copy of statement of account furnished by the site

                               Supervisor of the 4 & 5tyh opposite parties by name

                               Kandasamy corrected by site engineer of opposite parties 1

                              to 3 and by complainant.

      

                   

Opposite parties’ side document: -   ..  Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.