Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/289/2014

R. MUTHUKRISHNAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD, CHAIRMAN - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                    Present:  Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                   Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                            MEMBER

F.A. No. 289 / 2014

                         (Against the Order in C.C. No. 230 / 2012, dated 30-05-2014 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai [North])

Dated this the 10^TH day of DECEMBER, 2015

R. Muthukrishnan,                     ]

Advocate,                                           ]

281, Lawyers New Chambers,             ]

High Court Campus,                           ] ..  Appellant / Complainant

Chennai – 600 104                    ]

 

                   Vs.

1. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,             ]

    Represented by its Chairman,         ]

    Tamil Nadu Housing Board,   ]

    Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035        ]

]

2. The Executive Engineer &               ]

    Administrative Officer,                    ]

    K.K. Nagar Division,                       ]

    Tamil Nadu Housing Board,   ]

    Ashok Nagar Shopping Centre,        ]  ..  Respondents / Opposite

    Chennai – 600 083                          ]                               Parties

   

This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 15-10-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

 

Counsel for Appellant:     -        Party in person.

Counsel for Respondent:  -        M/s Yuvakumar – R1 & R2.

 

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                     This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C. No. 230 / 2012, dated 30-05-2014, dismissing the complaint.

                    The case of the complainant is that in response to an advertisement by the 2^nd opposite party / Tamilnadu Housing Board, the complainant purchased an application from the opposite parties on 16-10-2009 on paying Rs.500/-. On perusal of the application, he found certain conditions and undertakings in the application needed to be clarified. He sent a letter dated 07-11-2009 to the opposite party seeking certain clarifications regarding the conditions and undertakings in the application form. The opposite party has received the letter on 09-11-2009 but failed to send any reply in time, as a result of which, he could not apply for allotment of a flat, which amounts to  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and hence the complaint.

2.       According to the opposite parties, the letter dated 07-11-2009 sent by the complainant was duly replied to, in detail, on 29-12-2009. Further, the complainant is already allotted a flat and so he is not entitled to apply for another flat, and so the complainant has no business to seek clarifications, and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.       

4.       The contention of the appellant / complainant is that he sought certain clarifications from the opposite parties regarding the conditions and undertakings found in the application form which he purchased on payment of Rs.500/-, but the opposite parties did not reply in time and so he was deprived of the opportunity to apply for allotment of a flat.

5.       Per contra, the contention of the respondents / opposite parties would be that as per their rules, a person who is already allotted a flat by the opposite parties, is not eligible to apply for another flat and so the complainant is not eligible to apply for another flat and so the question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties does not arise.

6.       On perusal of the records, we find that the complainant’s letter dated 07-11-2009 was received by the opposite parties on 09-11-2009 and the opposite parties sent a reply only on 29-12-2009; whereas the crucial date / closing date for submission of the application form is 18-11-2009, and therefore, it is clear that in view of the inordinate delay in replying to the complainant’s letter, the complainant has lost his opportunity to apply for the flat for which he purchased the application form on payment of Rs.500/- to the opposite parties.

7.       It is argued by the opposite parties that had the complainant applied for allotment of a flat, he would not have been allotted any flat, since he is already allotted a flat by the opposite parties. We have to note that the complainant had purchased the application form paying Rs.500/- and the opposite parties ought to have sent a detailed reply or otherwise an interim reply to the complainant on or before the closing date i.e. 18-11-2009. It is hypothetical that, had the complainant applied for allotment of the flat, he could not have been allotted a flat since he had already been allotted a flat by the opposite parties.

8.       The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not entitled to allotment of a flat since he is already been allotted a flat by the opposite parties elsewhere and so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not replying to the complainant’s letter for clarification on or before the closing date viz. 18-12-2009.

9.       In the version filed by the opposite parties at para 7, it is stated as follows:

“It is submitted that the undertaking No.11 is a common one applicable to all the schemes of TNHB and in the instant scheme, this undertaking was subject to deletion. It was by over sight this undertaking was undeleted in the application sold to the complainant”

……..

“Condition No.8 viz. sale deed will be executed after completion of 10 years is liable for deletion and the latter part only is insisted”.

10.     On considering the entire materials on record, we find that the letter dated 07-11-2009 sent by the complainant has been replied to by the opposite parties only on 29-12-2009 i.e. after a lapse of more than 7 weeks, and we hold that the failure of the opposite parties to send a detailed reply or an interim reply to the complainant regarding the conditions and undertakings in the application form, before the closing date for submission of the application amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11.     In view of our finding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. 

12.     The complainant has claimed punitive damages of Rs.1,98,050/- towards 5% of the cost of the flat with exemplary costs. In this context, we have to note that the complainant is not entitled to allotment of the flat since he is already allotted a flat by the opposite parties and so the question of awarding punitive damages of 5% of the flat i.e. Rs.1,98,050/- does not arise at all.

13.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to award a token compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable by the opposite parties to the complainant.

14.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant, as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for mental agony caused to the complainant, and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.

 

P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                       J. JAYARAM         

MEMBER                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER