Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

855/2009

S.Murugesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Tamil Nadu State Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

K.C. Arthi , K.Saravanakumar

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   07.03. 1995

                                                                        Date of Order :   18.11.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

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

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

 

C.C.NO.855/2009

WEDNESDAY THIS  18^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER  2015

 

Murugesan,

S/o. Subramonia Pillai,

No.411, K.P. Road,

Nagarkovil,

Tamil Nadu.                                                   ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

Tamilnadu Housing Board,

Rep.  by its Chairman,

No.311, Anna Salai,

Nandanam (P.O.),

Chennai 600 035.                                                       ..Opposite party   

 

 

For the Complainant                 :   M/s. Dr. Anita Sumanth & other

 

For the Opposite party              :   M/s. S. Rajakumar & other

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party the allotment of the plot No.997 allotted to Tmt.T.Bhagavathi Amma the mother of the complainant and also to pay Rs.6,00,000/- for mental agony with  cost of this complaint  to the complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

 The complaint mentioned plot was originally allotted to the complainant’s mother Tmt. Bhagavathiamma by the opposite party under the lease cum sale agreement by allotment order of the opposite party,  towards the said allotment the Tmt. Bhagavathiamma has already paid / remitted Rs.3750/- as 25% cost of the plot.  Subsequently the regular allotment order was also issued.    But the said Tmt. Bhagavathiamma was died on 25.9.1973 itself.    The complainant has approached the opposite party  Tamil Nadu Housing Board to transfer the said allotment of the plot in his name stating that he was one of the legal heir of the deceased Tmt.Bhagavathiamma who was the original allottee, and another legal heir his sister who had given consent for him to transer the said allotment in his favour the opposite party by letter, dated 6.4.1975 has stated that the regular allotment in the name of Tmt. Bhagavathiamma after the death and execution the Lease-cum Sale agreement by the complainant is not in order.   However the complainant’s request for transfer of the plot will be considered if the complainant are eligible for allotment as per rules.   Again by letter,  dated 8.8.1975 the opposite party has informed the complainant that the allotment of plot No.997 in Arignar Anna Nagar Western Extension made in favour of Tmt. Bhagavathiamma on 30.12.1974 is considered as invalid since she was not alive on that date.

2.   The complainant further states that the allotment of this plot may be considered in favour of the complainant or his sister as a fresh allotment if they are eligible.  However the opposite party denied the allotment of a fresh plot by its letter dated 2.2.1993 to the complainant herein on the ground that he already possesses the house at Nagercoil valued at Rs.20,000/-.   As a legal heir of the deceased mother, he is eligible for the plot already allotted to her by the opposite party’s communication dated 21.3.1973.   The opposite party by its communication dated 2.2.1993 further advised the complainant herein that plot No.997 originally allotted to Tmt. T.Bhagavathi Amma, complainant’s mother had been transferred to one Mr.Nagin on 4.6.1980.    However is a total arbitrary and unjust action, since this transfer allotment to a third party had been done even while the very plot had been allotted to the mother of the complainant Tmt.T.Bhagavathi Amma.    As such the act of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

Written version of   opposite party is  as follows:-

3.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party submit that Tmt.T.Bhagavathi Ammal, mother of the complainant applied for the complaint mentioned plot which was allotted to  her and she was asked to pay 25% of the cost i.e. Rs.3750/- as initial deposit.    Accordingly she paid Rs.3750/- and got an allotment order.  Tmt. T.Bhagavathi Ammal expired, the legal heirs including the complainant herein requested to allot the plot in their name.   The said request of the complainant by letter dated 20.3.76 on the ground that the complainant was not eligible for re allotment as he had already owned property for value more than Rs.3000/- and he was asked to get the refund of amount paid by his mother after producing refund voucher.   The complaint mentioned plot the property under dispute which stands cancelled as said earlier and was subsequently re-allotted to one Thiru.Nagin on 26.6.1980 and on payment of entire cost by the said subsequent allottee, the sale deed also issued on 19.4.1989.    As per Rules and regulation of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board the allotment has been cancelled in respect of Tmt.T.Bhagavathi Ammal and subsequent allotment was made in favour of Thiru.Nagin and hence the relationship of service provider and consumer has been ceased and hence the complaint is not maintainable in either in law or on facts.   Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence  the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A37  marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite party had filed his proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 marked on the side of the opposite party. 

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

6.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

Perused the complaint  filed by the complainants, written version filed by the  opposite party, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the  opposite party and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A37  filed on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 filed on the side of the opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.

7.     There is no dispute that the complaint mentioned plot was originally allotted to the complainant’s mother Tmt. Bhagavathiamma by the opposite party under the lease cum sale agreement by allotment order of the opposite party under Ex.A8, dated 14.8.1974, towards the said allotment the Tmt. Bhagavathiamma has already paid / remitted Rs.3750/- as 25% cost of the plot.  Subsequently the regular allotment order was also issued  in her favour as per Ex.A11, dated 30.12.1974.  But the said Tmt. Bhagavathiamma was died on 25.9.1973 itself as per the death certificate filed on the side of complainant Ex.A14.   The complainant has approached the opposite party  Tamil Nadu Housing Board to transfer the said allotment of the plot in his name stating that he was one of the legal heir of the deceased Tmt.Bhagavathiamma who was originally allottee, and another legal heir his sister who had given consent for him to transfer the said allotment in his favour the opposite party by letter Ex.A13 dated 6.4.1975 has stated that the regular allotment in the name of Tmt. Bhagavathiamma after the death and execution of the Lease-cum Sale agreement by the complainant is not in order.  However the complainant’s request for transfer of the plot will be considered if the complainant are eligible for allotment as per rules.   Again by letter Ex.A16 dated 8.8.1975 the opposite party has informed the complainant that “the allotment of plot No.997 in Arignar Anna Nagar Western Extension made in favour of Tmt. Bhagavathiamma on 30.12.1974 is considered as invalid since she was not alive on that date.  Therefore the decision of transfer of the plot to her legal heirs does not arise and further stating that however allotment of this plot in favour of any one of you, (as a fresh allotment) will be considered provided he / she is eligible as per works.   One of you may therefore apply with the written consent of the other in the prescribed application from which can be had from the receptionist, office of Tamil Nadu Housing Board on payment of Rs.5/- per copy above with the certificate from the Tahsildar showing the relationship between the transferee (the applicant) and late Tmt.T.Bhagavathiamma not later than 30.8.1975 so as to enable this to take necessary further action in this matter.   The amount available at the credit will also be transferred to the account of transferee of the allotment is made.”  Accordingly the complainant has filed a fresh application to the opposite party for allotment of the said plot i.e. Ex.A21.    However the document produced along with the said application by the complainant for value of his house at Nagercoil by Solvency Certificate Ex.A25 which reveals that the said house belongs to the complainant at Nagercoil is of Rs.20,000/- and the complainant also produced the income certificate obtained from  Chartered Accountant i.e. Ex.A20 in which the complainant’s average annual income is above Rs.10,000/-.  According to the opposite party as per the above certificate furnished by the complainant i.e. Ex.A25 & Ex.A20 the complainant is owning the house at Nagercoil for the value of Rs.20,000/- and his annual income is Rs.10,000/-, as such the complainant as per the rules and regularization of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme not entitled for allotment of the said plot.  Accordingly the opposite party has rejected the request of the complainant for the transfer of the said plot in his name which was originally allotted to his mother as he was not eligible as per the rules and regulations of the housing board for allotment.   Further stated that the amounts which was in the credit of the complainant’s mother will be refunded on production of the refund voucher duly affixed ….  by letter Ex.B4, dated 20.3.1976.  The complainant himself admitting the said rejection of his request by the opposite party  who has sent letter to the complainant to re-consider the said decision dated 29.1.1983.  Considering the above facts of the case which reveals from the document filed by both side that the original allotment of the compliant mentioned plot in favour of the complainant’s mother was cancelled since it was involved as the regular allotment order was issued after death of the said Tmt.Bhagavathiamma who is the mother of the complainant and approached made by the complainant for transfer of the said plot in his name as legal heir was also rejected by letter Ex.A11, dated 6.4.1975.  Again the request made by the complainant for fresh allotment on the advice of the opposite party was also rejected since the complainant was owning house at Nagercoil for the value of Rs.20,000/- having annual income of Rs.10,000/- which made him not eligible for the allotment of plot as per rules and regulations and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.  It is also pertinent to note that the condition for allotment of building sites attached with application submitted by the complainant Ex.A21 the condition No.2 it is mentioned that

“The applicant / his wife / her husband / minor child should not own a house or house site anywhere in Madras State or have any share of interest in such property if any exceeding Rs.3000/-“

The complainant was advised to file fresh application for fresh allotment of the said plot which was originally allotted to his deceased mother since he was not eligible as per the above mentioned condition of the  Tamil Nadu Housing Board he was not allotted plot and the same was rejected is acceptable.  

 8.    It is also pertinent to note that the allotment for complaint mentioned plot sought for by the complainant was rejected  by the opposite party on 20.3.1976 by letter Ex.B4 and asked to furnish necessary voucher receiving the amount available in the credit of his mother.  Though the complainant has approached the opposite party and have sent legal notice to the opposite party, the opposite party has replied by letter Ex.A32 dated 2.2.1993 that he was not eligible even for fresh allotment of the said plot as per conditions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board rules and regulation and the same compliant mentioned plot was also allotted to One Nagin by the subsequent decision of the opposite party Tamil Nadu Housing Board allotment committee held on 4.6.1980.  Despite of the said receipt of the notice by the complainant this complaint filed by the complainant even originally before the Hon’ble State Commission on 7.3.1995 is highly belatedly out of limitation period as per Sec.24 –A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Therefore as contended by the opposite party this complaint is barred by limitation as per Sec.24-A of the Consumer Protection Act and liable to be dismissed is acceptable.

 

9.     Therefore as discussed above we are of the considered view that the rejection of the complainant request for allotment of plot mentioned in the complaint was made in the year 1976 itself as he was not eligible for the allotment as per the conditions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board rules and regulations which cannot be considered to be deficiency of service.  Further this complaint is filed by the complainant originally before the Hon’ble State Commission on 7.3.1995 i.e. after lapse of 19 years.   Therefore we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is highly barred by limitation as per Sec.24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.  As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint  against opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.    

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 18^th   day of November   2015.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1- 30.8.1972                 - Copy of application form.

Ex.A2- 28.9.1972                 - Copy of receipt from the opposite party.

Ex.A3- 25.10.1972 -Copy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A4- 20.2.1973 -  Copy of letter from the opposite party to Bhagawathi Amma.  

Ex.A5- 15.3.1973 - Copy of letter from Bhagawathi Amma to the TNHB with cheque Rs.3250/

 

Ex.A6- 21.3.1973                 - Copy of receipt from TNHB to Bhagawathi Amma for Rs.3250/-

 

Ex.A7- 17.7.1974                 - Copy of Provisional Allotment letter from TNHB to Bhagawathi Amma.

 

Ex.A8- 14.8.1974 -  Copy of Provisional Allotment letter from TNHB to Bhagawathi Amma.

 

Ex.A9- 17.9.1974                 - Copy of letter from S.Murugesan to TNHB informing the death of Bhawathiamma.

 

Ex.A10- 17.9.1974- Copy of Acknowledgment.

 

Ex.A11- 30.12.1974-  Copy of Allotment order from TNHB to Bhagawathi Amma.

 

Ex.A12- 25.1.1978 – Copy of letter from S.Murugesan & Umaya Parvathi to the Chairman TNHB.

 

Ex.A13- 6.4.1975   - Copy of letter from the Chairman, TNHB to S.Murugesan and Umaya Parvathi.

 

Ex.A14- 15.4.1975 – Copy of letter from S.Murugesan to the Chairman, TNHB, with death certificate.

 

Ex.A15-1.8.1975  - Copy of letter from S.Murugesan to the Chairman, TNHB.

 

Ex.A16- 8.8.1975 - Copy of receipt for the amount of Rs.1,876/-

 

Ex.A17- 8.8.1975 - Copy of letter from Housing Board to S.Murugesan and Umayaparvathi.

 

Ex.A18- 28.8.1975 – Copy of letter from S.Murugesan and UmayaParvathi to the TNHB.

 

Ex.A19- 1.9.1975 - Copy of Legal heir Certificate.

 

Ex.A20- 15.9.1975 – Copy of income certificate.

 

Ex.A21- 15.9.1975 – Copy of application for transfer by S.Murugesan to TNHB.

 

Ex.A22- 25.9.1975 – Copy of letter from S.Murugesan to TNHB requesting for transfer.

 

Ex.A23- 3.10.1975 – Copy of letter from the Chairman, to Bhagwathi Amma enclosing provisional

                                      Statement of account as on 31.3.1975.

 

Ex.A24- 14.11.1975- Copy of letter from the TNHB to S.Murugesan.

 

Ex.A25- 17.12.1975- Copy of Solvency Certificate.

 

Ex.A26- 4.5.1976    - Copy of notice to Murugesan.

 

Ex.A27- 20.5.1976 – Copy of letter from TNHB, withdrawing the statutory notice.

 

Ex.A28- 29.1.1983 – Copy of letter from S.Murugesan to the Chairman TNHB.

 

Ex.A29- 10.3.1984 – Copy of letter from the Chairman, TNHB, to S.Murugesan.

 

Ex.A30- 14.2.1986 – Copy of letter from S.Murugesn to Hon’ble Minster for Housing Board.

 

Ex.A31- 17.9.1987 – Copy of letter from S.Murugesan to the Chairman, Housing Board.

 

Ex.A32- 9.10.1992 – Copy of letter from Murugesan to the Secretary Kumari Jila Consumer Protection

                                      Action council to the Chairman, Housing Board.

 

Ex.A33- 18.11.1992- Copy of Notice from Kumari Zilla Consumer Protection Action Council to the

                                       Chairman, Housing Board.

 

Ex.A34- 20.1.1993  - Copy of letter from Murugesan to the Chairman, TNHB.

 

Ex.A35- 2.2.1993   - Copy of letter from the TNHB, to the Kumari Zilla Consumer Protection Action council

 

Ex.A36- 21.11.2007- Copy of order of the Madras High Court in WP No.12426/1996.

 

Ex.A37- 7.1.2008    - Copy of the order of SCDRC, Chennai in O.P.79/1995.

 

 

Opposite party’s side  documents:

Ex.B1-  20.2.1973 -  Copy of allotment order.

Ex.B2- 17.12.1973  - Copy of Death Certificate.

Ex.B3- 30.12.1974 – Copy of regular allotment order.

Ex.B4- 20.3.1976   - Copy of letter informing the negative decision.

Ex.B5- 30.10.1979 – Copy of letter informing to get refund.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.