Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/621/2012

U. MOHANDASS, THE SUPERINTENT - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,THE TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

S. RADHA RAMANAN

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                              BEFORE        Thiru. A.K.ANNAMALAI            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                       Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER

F.A.NO. 621/2012

(Against order in C.C. No.363/2010

DCDRF, Coimbatore Dated  10.10.2011)

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

U.Mohandass

S/o Unneerkutty

The Superintendent

Police Recruitment school

Coimbatore 641  018                                                            ..Appellant/complainant

                                                               Vs

1.The  Managing Director

The Tamilnadu Housing Board,

493, Annasalai, Nandanam

Chennai -35           

 

2. The Executive Engineer and the

 Administrative Officer

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Coimbatore Housing Division

Tatabad, Coimbatore 641 012                                  ..Respondent/Opposite parties

 

Counsel for Appellant/complainant       : M/s S. Radha Ramanan

Counsel for  Respondent/Opposite parties : M/s. Yuvakumar

 

The complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore  in CC.No. 363/2010 dated 10.10.2011.

         This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.10.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore, this commission made the following order.

 

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.              The unsatisfied complainant is the appellant.

2.         The complainant purchased a house at Singanallur scheme of opposite parties during the year 1996 for the value of Rs. 3,56,353/- by paying the costs through the Government loan being the government servant and as the opposite party collected Rs. 37,420/- in excess against the rules and regulations relates to penal interest and other costs and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed praying for refund of Rs. 35,886/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs.

3.          The opposite parties denied the allegations contending that they have collected all the money as per rules since the complainant failed to pay dues within the due dates for which the penal interest and other charges were collected and as per the audit, a sum of Rs.11,480/- alone is refundable to the complainant which would be refunded after the audit is over.

4.               Based on both side materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum accepting the contention of the opposite parties, dismissed the complaint, against the opposite parties observing that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

5.             Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed the appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without considering the documents Ex.B.7 and Ex.A.10 which shows discrepancy of refund amount for Rs.16,568/- and now admitted for Rs.11,480/- and thereby even that amount was not repaid and thereby the appeal to be allowed.

6.            The appeal is taken for arguments and sufficient chances were given since the appellant not represented or come forward to put forth his arguments after hearing the arguments of the Respondent, on the basis of materials, the order being passed on merits.

7.        The only dispute between the parties is for the refund of money out of the amounts paid by the complainants towards the purchase of house for Rs.3,56,353/- for which Rs.3,90,000/- was paid through Government loan including for interest and other charges and apart from that the complainant contended that a sum of Rs. 37,420/- was collected in excess. Whereas the opposite party contended as per the records, they are liable to refund only Rs.11,420/- which would be refunded after the audit over. In those circumstances, the District Forum considering all the relevant materials came to the conclusion that because of the default on the part of the complainant in repaying the dues within the due date of every month for which the opposite parties have collected the interest, penal interest, etc., and the complainant failed to prove that the opposite parties have collected in excess wrongfully. The opposite party relied upon Ex.B.7, calculation abstract, computerized one and also estimated the details of complainant under Ex.B.6 also and on the basis, the District Forum came to the proper conclusion, we find no error or infirmity and thereby the appeal is liable to be dismissed as no merits and accordingly,

       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC. No. 363/2010 dated 10.10.2011, however with direction to the opposite parties to refund the admitted amount of Rs.11,420/- to the complainant immediately if already not refunded.

         There is no order as to costs.

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                              A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER