Date of Filling:      02.06.2018

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  11.09.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:   THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                                 ….PRESIDENT

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.05/2018

TUESDAY, THE 11 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

N.K. Swaminathan

S/o.Kundan,

No.H.13, New NGO Colony,

Thiruvallur - 602 001.                                                ……..Complainant

                                               //Versus//

1.The Chainman &Managing Director,

   Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

   Anna Salai, Nandanam,

   Chennai -600 035.

2.The Executive Engineer/Administrative officer,

    Korattur Division.

    Tamil Nadu Satelite Town Division,

    Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

     Poonamallee,

     Chennai - 600 056.

3. Sales Manager,

    Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

    Tamil Nadu State lite Town Division,

    Poonamalee,

    Chennai -600 056.                                                            …… Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 31.08.2018 in the presence of complainant, who has appeared as party in person, opposite parties 1to 3 called absent and set ex-parte, perused complainants side documents, and hearing the arguments on the side of the complainant and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

                                                       ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

            This complaint has been preferred by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties seeking direction to execute the sale deed without any interest and pay the compensation to the complainant for loss and injury suffered due to negligence and misfeasance in public office of the opposite parties along with the cost.

2.The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-

The complainant is as a resident of Thiruvallur applied for the allotment of the house in1988 house scheme at periyakuppam, Thiruvallur. The 2^nd opposite party who was in charge of execution of the said scheme, selected the complainant for allotment of HIG flat at Thiruvallur under scheduled Caste Community Category and allotted the House No.H13 under Hire purchase basis vide its letter No.R.4/416/88, dated 18.11.1988.  The TNHB fixed the tentative cost of House for Rs.1,21,300/- and directed to pay deposit of 1/10 of the cost of Rs.12,130/-.

3. That the complainant being a allottee working under the Government of Tamil Nadu to come forward to take the allotted house to outright purchase basis and sought permission for exemption to pay the initial cost of Rs.12,130/- and requested to furnish No Objection Certificate to mortgage the property with the collector of chengalpet, who is the sanctioning authority of house building advance based on the Go.MS No.908 Housing and urban development department Dated.16.07.1980.  The 2^nd opposite party (TNHB) also issued No objection certificate exempting to pay the initial cost of Rs.12,130/- to obtain house building advance from the Government based on the GO MS No.174 Housing and urban development dated 07.02.1991 so as to enable to pay entire cost of the house for Rs.1,21,300/- and converted the hire purchase scheme into outright purchase scheme and Tamil Nadu Housing Board also issued No objection Certificate (A&B Certificate) vide its letter No.R4/416/88 dated22.12.1989 and handed over the possession of the allotted house on 01.03.1990 along with outright purchase sale agreement. 

4. On 04.10.1991, the opposite party informed the complainant vide its letter No.Op2/416/88 that there are outstanding amount of Rs.1,28,839/- pending in the House No.H-13 the account should be cleared and the monthly interest of Rs.164/- should be paid on or before 10^th of every month.  However, the complainant has not paid the said monthly interest of Rs.164/- till the payment of entire cost of the house for Rs.1,21,300/- on 23.03.1993.  The complainant paid entire cost of Rs.1,21,300/- for the said house by means of D.D. after receipt of the house building advance from the Government.  The TNHB also issued the receipt for the payment of Rs.1,21,300/- vide its AB No.20327 dated 22.04.1993 and also for Rs.1475/-.  Even after remittance of the sale price of Rs.1,21,300/- by means of demand draft containing serial No.121657 dated 23.03.1993, the opposite party not executed the sale deed in spite of the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party in several years, the opposite party never executed the sale deed and on various representation on 17.07.2007.  The opposite party through letter No.f.f.e.v.9/5693/2007 stated that the final cost for the land house has not been fixed, so the sale deed shall not be executed.

5. It is surprise and shock to the complainant to remit the balance amount pending in the tentative cost amount to Rs.2,91,847/- for sale deed through letter No.Nfh.v.9/416/88 dated 01.08.2007 on 25.08.2007.  Again on 25.09.2007 the opposite party stated that the cost for the land has not been fixed, so the sale deed shall not be executed on 19.08.2010.  The opposite party again demanded the balance amount pending in the tentative cost up to 31.08.2010 is Rs.3,39,066/- for sale deed through fbj vz;.f.f.e.Nfh.v.V 9 dated 19.08.2010.  Thereafter on receipt of the complainants legal notice dated 11.03.2013 U/s.80 of Civil Procedure code, the opposite party insisting the complainant to remit the balance amount Rs.2,22,294/- vide its letter No.TSTD/A3/416/88 dated 10.07.2014 and again the opposite party insisted the complainant to remit the balance amount pending after discount of interest upto 31.08.2014 is Rs.2,22,763 for sale deed.

6. The complainant further submits that according to Tamil Nadu Housing Board Chairman 1^st opposite party proceedings order No.2/47305/87 dated.28.10.1987.  The pricing committee of Tamil Nadu Housing Board fixed the land costs of Rs.37,424/- per ground i.e.2400 Sq.feet and also fixed the salable price for this houses as Rs.1,21,300/- including land cost of Rs.37,424/-.  It is astonished to note that after lapse of 29 years the Government also fixed the lake porambokku land final cost as Rs.150/- through Go MSNo.265 revenue Dated 03.08.2009.  If we calculated this Rs.150/- per cent in to ground i.e. five and half of cents, it will comes only Rs.875/- alone as land cost.  It is significant to note that this same rate fixed on 03.08.1989 vide through Go MS No.1243 Revenue department.  The act of the opposite parties clearly amount to unfair trade practice which leads to deficiency of service and caused mental agony and financial loss.  Hence this complaint is filed.

7. Though sufficient opportunities given to the opposite parties they did not turned up before this Forum even though they have received notice.  Hence, the opposite parties were set ex-parte.

 8.  On the side of the complainant, the complainant filed Proof Affidavit as his evidence. In order to substantiate his case, Exhibit A1 to 31are marked on his side.

9. At this Juncture, the points for determination before this forum are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties as narrated in the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for?

            10. Written Arguments filed by the complainant and oral argument adduced.

11. In such circumstances, this Forum decided to conclude this matter fully on merits with available evidence and documents put forth on the side of the complainant before this Forum, though the Opposite parties were set Ex-parte.

12. Point No:1:-

According to the averments of the complaint is that though the complainant has paid the entire consideration to the opposite parties Housing Board, the opposite parties have failed to execute the sale deed and thereby the complainant had suffered much loss and injury due to the deficiency of service and negligence of the opposite parties.

12. At the outset, it is learnt that in spite of the opposite parties remained Ex-parte it is needless to say that it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove the case of the complainant with relevant documents and consistent evidence.  If it is so, this Forum has to consider as to whether the complainant has placed before this Forum the acceptable and consistent evidence to prove the averments of the complaint.  First of all, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the complainant by means of proof Affidavit, it is learnt that the complainant is being a non-Gazette Government servant and belongs to Scheduled Caste Community Category and allotted house H-13,Vide letter No.R4/416/88 dated.18.11.1988 and the opposite party fixed the tentative cost for the said house to the tune of Rs.1,21,300/- and directed to pay initial deposit of Rs.12,130/- being the 1/10 total tentative cost initially.  The above said letter is marked as ExhibitA1.  Thereafter, it is seen that the complainant being an alottee working under the Government of Tamil Nadu decided to take the allotted house to outright purchase basis and to that effect he sought permission for the exemption to pay the initial cost of Rs.12,130/- and requested the opposite parties to furnish No objection Certificate to mortgage the said property with the Collector of Chengalpet for obtaining house building advance based on GO MS No.908 which is marked as Exhibit A2. Then on the request of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party had issued No objection Certificate which is marked as Ex.A3 and in this connection Ex.A4 (A&B Certificate) also issued on 22.12.1989 and also handed over the possession of the allotted house to the complainant through Ex.A5, on 01.03.1990 along with outright purchase sale agreement is marked as Ex.A6 and in the above said date itself the complainant has taken the possession of the said house and enjoyed the same till date.

13. It is further learnt from the evidence that through Ex.A7 the opposite party informed to the complainant the monthly interest of Rs.164/- for the non-payment of the initial amount as exempted should be paid on or before 10^th of every month till the payment of entire cost of the house.  Thereafter, on 23.03.1993 the complainant paid the entire tentative cost of Rs.1,21,300/- on receipt of the house building advance is marked as Ex.A8.  The Tamil Nadu housing Board also issued the receipt for the payment of Rs.1,21,300/- and also for Rs.1475/- which is marked as Ex.A9.  Further, it is narrated by the complainant in his Proof Affidavit that in spite of the complainant approached the opposite parties in several years and paid the entire cost, the opposite party never executed the sale deed and on various representation, the opposite party stated through Ex.A10 that the final cost of the land and house has not been fixed and so that the sale deed shall not be executed which is surprised and shock to the complainant.

14. In this circumstances, again on 01.08.2007 the opposite party insisting the complainant to remit the balance amount pending in the tentative cost of Rs.2,91,847/- through Ex.A11,Ex.A12 and Ex.A13 on various dates and various amounts, therefore the complainant had issued a notice U/S 80 of Civil Procedure Code SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT to the Chairman, Tamil Nadu House Board and the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Chennai which is marked as Ex.A14 and even thereafter the opposite party insisted the complainant to remit the balance amount pending after discount of interest through Ex.A15and ExA16 and thereby after this unlawful letters the complainant filed petition before the Secretary to the Government Housing and Urban development U/S 197 Cr.PC for seeking permission to prosecute criminal case against the opposite parties which is marked as Ex.A17.

15. Furthermore, it is stated by the complainant in his evidence that according to the proceedings of the 1^st opposite party, the pricing Committee of Tamil Nadu Housing Board had fixed the land cost Rs.37,424/- per ground and also fixed the saleable price for the house as Rs.1,21,300/- including land cost are marked as Ex.A18 and Ex.A19 dated.03.08.2009 respectively.  It is further narrated by the complainant that as per the Ex.A20 the land cost only comes to be Rs.875/- and further going through the evidence of the complainant it is stated that the Ex.A21 to Ex.A24 being the government orders and also the complainant sent representation by means of letter through RPAD are marked as Ex.A25and Ex.A26 respectively and in this connection Ex.A27 has been sent by the department of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai.  Again, the complainant had sent Ex.A28 to the Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer for making arrangement to execute the sale deed within 15 days which is marked as Ex.A28.  Further, it is seen from the evidence of the complainant that the complainant sent a petition under RT Act through Ex.A29 and reply was given by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Poonamallee is marked as Ex.A30.  From the above evidence adduced by the complainant, the complainant has been seeking direction for executive of sale deed by the opposite party immediately.

16. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the submissions placed by the complainant and the documents placed on the side of the complainant it is no dispute that the complainant was selected for allotment of house No.H-13 by the opposite parties at Periyakuppam Housing Scheme, Thiruvallur through Ex.A1 and for which the tentative cost of the house only fixed for Rs.1,21,300/- at the time of allotment.  It is further clear that in the first instance, the complainant was selected hire purchase basis and subsequently the complainant who being a Government Servant of Tamil Nadu State came forward for outright purchase basis and sought permission for exemption to pay the initial cost of Rs.12,130/-, 1/10 of the above said tentative cost of Rs.1,21,300/- since the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community Category.  It is further learnt that on the request of the complainant, the opposite party had issued, No objection certificate and also on 01.03.1990, the possession also handed over through Ex.A5 to the complainant which clearly reveals the fact that the complainant had taken possession of the said house on 01.03.1990 itself and till date he is under the possession of the said house.  In such circumstances, at the time handing over the possession the opposite party had cleared that the monthly interest of Rs.164/- for the exemption amount of initial payment of Rs.12,130/- should be paid till date of the tentative cost of the said house through Ex.A7.

17. At the outset, there is no doubt that the complainant had paid the entire tentative cost of Rs.1,21,300/-on sanction of the house building advance by the Collector of the Chengalpet District on 23.03.1993 through Ex.A8  and for the same the receipt has been issued by the opposite parties.  At this point of time, it is crystal clear, that till the date of said payment, the complainant has not at all paid the said monthly interest of Rs.164/- till the said date which is one of the condition made in the (A&B) agreement executed by the complainant to the opposite parties and accepted for the same.  If it is so, the complainant who being the Government Servant having duty bound to comply the conditions but the complainant has failed to do so and the same admitted by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the proof Affidavit.  Further there is no proof of documents filed on the side of the complainant for the said payment of the said interest towards the initial amount 12,130/-.  More so, all the above facts are all admitted and accepted by the complainant and also there is no doubt at all.  In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the complainant is a defaulter by not paying the admitted interest as per the A&B agreement.

18. The next point to be taken into consideration is that  as stated by the complainant that the fixation of tentative cost of alleged house to the tune of Rs.1,21,300/-is a final cost of the said house is correct or not.  As per the admitted facts and averments made in the complaint as well as Ex.A1 and ExA2 it is clearly mentioned that the only tentative cost of the house is of Rs.1,21,300/-.  Furthermore, it is clearly seen from the documents issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant that the final cost will be fixed later.  Similarly the A&B agreement was executed in between the parties and issuance of no objection certificate by the opposite party to the complainant had given clear recitals that on giving permission for conversion in to the outright purchase from the Hire purchase Scheme as already stated. From Ex.A7, it is noticed that till the payment of tentative cost, the complainant has to pay the interest of Rs.164/- per month for the exemption amount and along with the maintenance charges.  Therefore, for the letters addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties in several dates for insisting the execution of the sale deed, the opposite parties had properly replied the facts and circumstances and conditions of the Housing Board issued through various GO which are marked as Ex.A21to Ex.A24.

19. Moreover, as already discussed in the previous paragraph, it is crystal clear that the complainant has not even come forward to pay the monthly interest of Rs.164/- per month for the initial amount of Rs.12,130/- till the payment of the tentative cost of Rs.1,21,300/- on receipt of the house building advance. In this instance, it can be easily presumed by this Forum with rich experience that the complainant has no intention to pay the amount as per the condition accepted by way of A & B Agreement though the complainant is very well enjoyed the said house property for the past 29years.

20. Such being so, it is crystal clear that as already pointed out that the complainant is a defaulter.  At the outset, the following decision produced by the complainant. 

III (1999) CPJ 46(SC)

Lata Construction&Ors                      ….. Appellants

                                            ..Vs..

Dr.Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah&another    ….Respondents.

(2004) 5SCC 65

Ghaziabad Development Authority                              ….Appellant

                                                …Vs…

Balbir Singh                                                                  …….Respondent

II(2007)CPJ 17SC

Bangalore Development Authority                            ….. Appellant

                                                                   …Vs…

 Syndicate Bank                                                              –Respondent

(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cased 74

Chief Administrator, Puda

And Another.                                                      …Appellants

                                           Vs

Shabjam Virk (Mrs).                                       …Respondents

(2008) 5 MLJ 1523

P.Arunodhayam and Another                                  ….petitioner

                                              …Vs….

Secretary to Government,

Revenue Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu & other.                   ….Respondent

IV (2012) CPJ 12(SC)

Meerut Development Authority.                           ..Petitioner

                                             Vs

Mukesh Kumar Gupta                                                 Respondent

(2015) 1Supreme Court Cases 429

General Motors (India) Private limited.                     …Appellant.

                                            …Vs ….

           Ashok Ramnik lal tolat and another                  …. Respondent.

Are not at all applicable to the facts of the case on the hand. Moreover the Honourble Supreme Court held in (2006) 4 SCC 74 Chief Administrator, Puda and another Vs Shabnam Virk (Mrs) that the Consumer liable to pay the higher price as stipulated in the allotment order-Consumers plea that in the absence of any actual increase in the cost of construction he was not liable to pay the increased price, on facts, held, tenable.  So the said decision clearly goes against the complainant herein, Since, it is to be noted that the complainant himself had accepted in undertaking that he accepted the allotment of the house and undertook to abide by all the terms and condition of the allotment letter, Which is only the tentative cost of the alleged house and the (ExA4) agreement and the final cost to be fixed in the last stage.

21. From the foregoing among other facts and circumstances, this Forum has no hesitation to conclude that the complainant is a defaulter and therefore he has no right to claim any relief and also it is pertinent to say that the complainant has moved this Forum without clean hands.  Further the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against the opposite parties.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No:2:-

22. As per the conclusion arrived in the point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the Result, this Complaint is Dismissed.  No 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 Forum on this 11^th September 2018.

   -Sd-                                                                                 -Sd-

MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant.                                                     

            -Sd-                                                                                                -Sd-

         MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT.