Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/304/2013

D. NATARAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Opp.Party(s)

V. BALAJI

18 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                :     PRESIDENT

                  Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                  :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 304 of 2013

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.367 of 2012 dated 12.06.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Coimbatore.

 

Friday, the 18^th Day of March 2022

 

D. Natarajan

S/o. Late Doraisamy

M-26, Housing Unit

Mettupalayam PO

Coimbatore – 641 301.                                                 .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs -

The Executive Engineer

Coimbatore Housing Unit

Tata Bad

Coimbatore.                                                          .. Respondent /Opposite Party

 

 

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant                   : M/s.V. Balaji

    Counsel for the Respondent / Opposite Party    : Party-in-person

 

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 04.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant/ Complainant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH  J., PRESIDENT

 

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 12.06.2013 passed in C.C. No.367 of 2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

 

2.   The case of the complainant before the District Forum is as follows:  The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore unit acquired certain lands in Mettupalayam Town and converted the same into a Housing Unit about 30 years ago.  During formation of such housing unit, the complainant applied for a house and he was allotted a house bearing No.M-26 on 03.11.1982 by the opposite party in the Mettupalayam Housing Unit.  The opposite party had fixed the price of the house, tentatively, as Rs.39,000/-, which has to be paid in instalments with regular interest etc.  The complainant has also paid the entire instalments of 120 months, as agreed, in time.  The complainant took possession of the house No.M-26 and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house.  Whileso, the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.1,22,890/- in total.  On verification, the complainant found that the amount asked by the opposite party is excessive and asked the opposite party to confirm the amount. It was found that a sum of Rs.5,089/- has been claimed in excess from the complainant.  After rectification, the complainant was asked to pay a sum of  Rs.1,18,000/-.  The complainant has also paid the said sum of Rs.1,18,000/- on 01.03.2011 under Receipt No.074492, to the opposite party.  After paying the entire amount, the complainant was expecting formalities for execution of the sale deed.  But, the opposite party again demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- as full and final settlement. The complainant believing the words of the opposite party, paid Rs.16,000/- on 09.03.2011, under Receipt No.075358. Thus in total, the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- towards the cost of the house allotted.  On verification, the complainant found that the opposite party had received a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- in total, from the complainant instead of the exact amount of Rs.95,165/-.  Thus, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.38,835/- in excess. Therefore, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party, requesting him to refund the excess amount, for which the opposite party did not send any reply.  Hence, the complainant sent a letter to the Tamil Nadu Housing Unit Allottees’ Welfare Association on 30.06.2011. The opposite party sent a letter dated 16.08.2011 along with a copy of an irrelevant Government Order and expressed his inability to refund the amount. The said Government order is in no way applicable to the case of the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint seeking for the following reliefs:-

1. To refund the sum of Rs.38,835/- to the complainant as the same is collected from him in excess.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings caused to the complainant.
3. To pay the cost of this litigation.

 

3.  The opposite party has filed a written version stating that the complainant D.Natarajan was allotted with a house bearing No.M-26 on 03.11.1982 by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore.  The tentative cost was fixed as Rs.39,000/- for the house and the same amount has to be paid in instalments with interest.  The allegation of the complainant that he had to pay Rs.1,53,899/- to the opposite party in total, out of which he had already paid Rs.58,734/- by way of initial deposit and the remaining balance of Rs.95,165/- alone is to be paid to the opposite party, is not correct.   The complainant took possession of the house bearing No.M-26.  The opposite party sent a letter to the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,22,890/- to the Housing Board.  But the allegation that the opposite party had wrongly calculated the final amount and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,089/- more is false.  Only as a concession, the opposite party waived off Rs.5,089/- from the earlier amount and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,000/-.  The complainant also agreed and paid a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- under Receipt No.74492.  After fixing the final land cost as determined by the Board, the opposite party asked the complainant to pay the difference amount of Rs.16,000/-, which was paid by the complainant on 09.03.2011 under Receipt No.75358.  Thereafter, the sale deed has also been registered in the name of the complainant.  Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party had collected Rs.38,835/- in excess, is not correct.  Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit and 12 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12.  On the side of the opposite party 8 documents were filed and marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B8, along with the proof affidavit.

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire material placed on record, has come to the conclusion that the complainant had accepted the final rate fixed by the Housing Board and paid the difference.  The complainant had also obtained the sale deed.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thus dismissed the complaint.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

 

6.  Heard the submission of the counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on records. No representation for the opposite party, who contested the appeal as Party-in-Person. 

 

7.   When the matter was taken up for consideration, counsel for the appellant/ complainant made his submission adverting to the averments made in the complaint.    

 

8.  Counsel for the complainant by inviting the attention of this Court to the calculations, submitted that the complainant had paid an excess amount of Rs.22,511/- and the same is liable to be refunded by the opposite party.  According to the opposite party they have not collected any excess amount and that the complaint has been filed with incorrect particulars.  Be that as it may, on perusal of the order of the District Forum, we find that earlier for the same relief, Mettupalayam Housing Board Allottees Welfare Association has filed a suit before the Civil Court and the same was dismissed on 24.01.1998.  Thereafter, this complaint has been filed.  Whether the complainant has paid excess amount to the Housing Board or not can be decided only by adducing oral evidence and marking the statement of accounts.  The said issue cannot be decided in a summary manner, by merely going through the pleadings on either side.  In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.

 

9.    In the result, the order dated 12.06.2013 passed in C.C. No.367 of 2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is confirmed.  Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                              R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT