Date of filing: 24.06.2013.
Date of disposal: 09.01.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Sri S. Sreeram, B.A., B.Com., B.L., Member
Thursday, the 09th day of January, 2014
C.C.No.156 of 2013
Between:
K. Pushpa Leela, Plot No.395, Prasanth Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad – 500070.
….. Complainant
And
1. Executive Engineer (Hg), A.P. Housing Board, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada – 12.
2. The Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board
(APHB), Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 26.12.2013, in the presence complainant appeared as inperson; Sri Naraharisetty Srihari, advocate for opposite party no.1; 2nd opposite party remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao,)
1. The complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to register the house in issue as per the registration values prevailing in the year, 2002 to pay the registration charges if registered at present value, to return Rs.12,859/- towards interest rebate, Rs.1,953/- towards penal interest and Rs.1,133/- towards excess amount with interest thereon; to pay Rs.1,64,000/- towards compensation.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is the allottee of the MIG House No.261 in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Nallapadu, Guntur, from the opposite party, with plinth area of 506 sq. feet with plot area of 201.67 sq.yds measuring 33’x55’. The opposite party had fixed tentative value of the house as Rs.1,87,200/-. The allottee has to pay Rs.72,200/- as initial cost. The balance amount of Rs.1,15,000/- would be arranged as loan from HUDCO. The complainant paid Rs.72,250/- by 7.11.1997. The loan of Rs.1,15,000/- was repayable in equated monthly instalments of Rs.5,461/-. The opposite party had given ‘Handing over Letter’ for the house to the complainant on 21.1.1998. The house has the plinth area of 506 sq. feet and plot area of 220 sq. yards. The complainant paid entire principal amount, interest, incidental charges and penal interest and obtained ‘no due certificate’ dated 21.5.2002. The opposite party informed the complainant through letter dated 5.2.2010 that the revised cost of MIG house is Rs.2,07,000/- as against the tentative cost of Rs.1,88,000/-. The complainant received that letter in the month of May, 2010. After repeated requests and visit to the office of the EE, APHB, he advised the complainant vide letter dated 5.6.2010 to pay Rs.1,47,778/-. The opposite party did not give break-up figures inspite of request. The complainant had sent a DD for Rs.19,800/- the difference between final cost and tentative cost and the DD for Rs.1,500/- towards plan fee and fee for transfer in favour of his daughter K. Kranti and enclosed necessary documents for transfer. The opposite party sent break-up figure. On correspondence the opposite party had sent another letter dated 12.10.2010 noting the revised amount as Rs.87,067/- in the place of Rs.1,47,778/-. On further correspondence the opposite party informed by fax that the revised amount payable was Rs.44,459/-. The complainant is not liable to pay the said amount as he paid all the amounts including the difference between final cost and tentative cost. The opposite party has informed through letter dated 12.10.2010 that the complainant has to pay cost of adjacent area of 17.09 sq. yards at the prevailing market rate. It is only excess area for which the cost payable is at the rate of Rs.228/- per sq. yard as per the break-up figures for the final cost of Rs.2,07,000/-. So the complainant has also paid Rs.4,182/- for the excess area of 18.33 sq. yards as the plot has actual area of 220 sq. yards as against the published area of 201.62 sq. yards. The complainant addressed another letter dated 2.12.2010 to the opposite party to process the registration of the house in favour of her daughter as he paid all amounts including transfer charges and plan charges of Rs.1,500/-. The complainant is also entitled to return of Rs.1,133/- the excess amounts collected by the opposite party, Rs.12,859/- towards interest rebate and interest. He wrote letter dated 7.12.2010 to the opposite party. As there is no response this complaint is filed.
3. The opposite party filed version generally denying the allegations and further stating as follows:
The A.P. Housing Board (APHB) had fixed tentative cost of MIG Houses with prescribed area of 201.67 sq. yards at Nallapadu, Guntur at Rs.1,88,000/- in the year, 1996. The complainant who applied for allotment of one MIG house in the year 1982, was informed on 24.2.1993 about the commencement of construction of MIG houses in Nallapadu with assistance of HUDCO. The prescribed area of MIG home is 201.675 sq. yards (33’.0” x 55’.0”) with plinth area of 506 sq. feet. The tentative cost worked out to be Rs.1,87,200/- out of which HUDCO had sanctioned loan to an extent of Rs.1,15,000/-. The complainant was to make down payment of Rs.62,200/- i.e., Rs.15,500/- on or before 31.3.1993, Rs.15,500/- on or before 30.7.1993, Rs.15,500/- on or before 30.11.1993 and Rs.15,700/- on or before 31.3.1994. In the drawal of lots, the MIG house No.261 was allotted to the complainant and she was informed on 29.6.1993. The complainant did not make down payment within time. She completed down payment on 7.11.1997. The agreement of sale was concluded on 20.1.1998 and the complainant took possession of the house. She gave declaration to A.P.H.B for payment of outstanding principal balance in 48 quarterly instalments and for payment of escalation charges, if any. APHB fixed the final cost of MIG house at Rs.2,07,000/- and instalments were fixed excluding Rs.72,500/- the down payment paid by the allottee. If any land is available in excess of standard area, the costs of excess land will be collected at market rate prevailing on the date of registration. Interest rebate will be allowed on the down payment amount. The complainant was asked to attend office for processing the file. She sent a letter 24.5.2010 asking for details of further amounts to be paid etc. The EE (HG), APHB addressed a letter dated 5.6.2010 informing the balance amount payable as Rs.1,47,778/- and plan charges subject to verification and confirmation. The complainant was asked to submit IX class certificate of her daughter along with processing fee of Rs.1000/- for consideration of transfer of house in her daughter’s name. The complainant sent a letter dated 29.6.2010 by fax with false allegations. Necessary documents and information sought for by the complainant were furnished from the office of APHB, Vijayawada. The complainant paid Rs.19,800/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-. On verification by head office, it was confirmed that the amount due and payable up to 19.10.2010 was Rs.87,067/- and cost of excess land of 17.09 sq. yards. It was informed to the allottee on 12.10.2011. On the representation of the complainant through fax dated 7.12.2010, the accounts officer recalled for file, revised the working sheet and certified the outstanding balance of Rs.44,449/-, allowing the rebate though the complainant was not entitled for the same. It was intimated to the complainant. The complainant did not pay the amount. The land cost for the excess land is payable as fixed by the housing commissioner, APHB in terms of G.O.6 dated 29.3.2011, before registration. The opposite party has no objection to register the house on payment of the balance. The complainant is not entitled to registration without making payment of balance and allotment can be cancelled. The complainant is not entitled to compensation.
4. This complaint was originally filed in District Consumer Forum – 1, Hyderabad as CC.603/2011. The proceedings were commenced till final hearing. The affidavits and documents were also received. The District Forum -1, Hyderabad passed the order on 29.1.2013 in that CC.603/2011 holding that the said Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and accordingly the complaint was returned. Thereafter the complaint is filed in this Forum and after registration the record was called for from the District Forum -1, Hyderabad. Both the parties stated before the Forum to consider the pleadings, affidavits and documents filed in the CC at Hyderabad as the pleadings and evidence for this complaint also. As they are available in the record, they are taken as part of these proceedings.
5. The complainant filed her affidavit as deposition of PW-1 and the Executive Engineer (Housing), A.P.H.B, Vijayawada filed his affidavit and it is received as deposition of DW-1. Exs.A1 to A27 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B29 are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the husband of the complainant on her behalf and by the learned counsel of the opposite party. The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective written arguments also.
7. The points that fall for determination are:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party on several counts as alleged by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?
Point No.1:
8. The complainant secured an MIG house in the allotments made by the A.P.H.B. from the housing board houses in Nallapadu, Guntur. It is the case of the complainant that she paid all the amounts payable and the opposite party failed to register the sale deed. The complainant further contends that the opposite party had collected amounts Rs.12,859/-, Rs.1,953/- and Rs.1,133/- in excess of the amounts payable by the complainant and therefore the complainant is entitled to the amounts along with interest at the rate of 22.8% p.a. The complainant also seeks compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards interest the complainant paid on the loans taken from private lenders, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.4,100/- towards charges and excess and Rs.10,000/- towards legal and documentation charges. It is therefore necessary to see if there is such deficiency on the part of the opposite parties with regard to each of the alleged items.
9. Non-registration of the plot is the main ground on which the complainant is filed. The opposite party admittedly did not register the plot in favour of the complainant. The complainant has requested for registration of the plot in the name of her daughter and said to have paid the transfer charges and plan charges. The objection of the opposite party is that the complainant did not pay entire amount payable towards the cost of the plot and till payment is not made the plot cannot be registered. We shall therefore see if the complainant is still due in any amount to the opposite party in connection with allotment of plot.
10. MIG 261 is the plot allotted to the complainant. The tentative cost fixed was Rs.1,88,000/-. The complainant initially applied to the housing board for allotments in the year, 1982. It appears in the year, 1990 the housing board had made a proposal for allotments of plot in Nallapadu. Then the allottees were required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as initial deposit. Subsequently the scheme was prepared and MIG houses were proposed for allotment at a tentative cost of Rs.1,88,000/-. According to the scheme the allottee shall pay Rs.72,200/- towards initial payment and the balance amount of Rs.1,15,000/- would be provided as loan by HUDCO. The opposite party had sent information through letter dated 24.2.1993 under Ex.A1 about the tentative cost, the loan sanctioned by HUDCO and payment particulars. According to this letter the tentative sale cost of the house was worked out at Rs.1,87,200/- and HUDCO had sanctioned loan of Rs.1,15,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount of initial payment of Rs.62,200/- was payable in 04 instalments. As per Ex.A1 the 1st instalment of Rs.15,500/- was payable within one month from the date of receipt of Ex.A1, 2nd instalment of Rs.15,500/- was payable within five months, 3rd instalment of Rs.15,500/- was payable within nine months and last instalment of Rs.15,700/- was payable within thirteen months from the date of receipt of Ex.A1. In Ex.B5 notice dated 22.6.1994 the dates for payment of the four instalments are given as 31.3.1993, 31.7.1993, 30.11.1993 and 31.3.1994. So these dates can be taken as dates for payment of instalments. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by 27.2.1990 as deposit and she paid Rs.15,000/- on 15.4.1993, Rs.14,250/- on 19.8.1993, Rs.15,000/- on 11.7.1994, Rs.10,000/- on 9.1.1995 and Rs.10,000/- on 9.11.1997. So the complainant has completed payment of initial amounts by 9.11.1997 beyond the date 31.9.1994.
11. The opposite party had fixed the final cost of the MIG house at Rs.2,07,000/- as per the details given in Ex.A18. It shows the initial cost, final approved cost, the break of figures for calculation and the revised final cost. This document is said to have been received by the complainant on 19.11.2010 by fax. The opposite party had taken long time for fixing the revised final cost. Since the revision depends on several factors including cost of complete development naturally the housing board would require reasonable long time to declare the revised final cost.
12. The rebate in interest was to be allowed at the rate of 30% for the group house like the house allotted to the complainant. According to the oppose party the interest rebate for the MIG flat as the one allotted to the complainant was Rs.12,859/-. The opposite party initially stated that the complainant is not entitled to rebate. However at the time of giving revised order and making calculation under Ex.B24 he had allowed rebate of Rs.12,859/-. Then it is not necessary to discuss whether the complainant is entitled to rebate or not.
13. It is the contention of the complainant that she paid all the amounts and she also made excess payment. The complainant filed Ex.A26 a statement of account prepared by an auditor. According to this statement the complainant made excess payment. The calculations made and shown in Ex.A26 are not correct. The quarterly interest is noted in the 1st quarter as Rs.4,310/-, but correct calculation shows interest on Rs.1,15,000/- at the rate of 15.2% p.a., as Rs.4,370/- for the 1st quarter. The other entries in the interest column are also incorrect. That apart the opposite party is entitled to deduct penal interest if any from the payments made before applying towards instalments. Otherwise it amounts to implied permission of delayed payment. The periodic deduction of the amounts paid from the principal amount due, as shown in Ex.A26, and deductions of the total penal interest at the time of closing balance is not correct. So we cannot give weight to the calculations made and balance arrived at in Ex.A26 the auditor statement of account.
14. The payment made by the complainant either towards initial payment or towards discharge of loan were irregular. Till 16.12.2000, the complainant paid Rs.53,288/- as against Rs.1,09,220/- the total of 20 instalments payable by then. The opposite party no doubt had given different figures as the amounts due from the complainant. As per the last calculation under Ex.B24, the amount payable by 19.12.2010 is shown as Rs.44,449/-. The calculation made therein does not appear to be defective, in view of the default on the part of complainant. At no point of time, till 16.12.2010 the payments exceeded the instalments amount due by the complainant. So we are satisfied that the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.44,449/- by 19.12.2010. Since she is defaulter she cannot demand registration of the plot and building till payment of the amount due.
15. The next point involved relates to the excess land. The opposite party had initially formed MIG plots each measuring 55’ x 33’, area coming to 201.67 sq. yards. It was shown in the earliest communication under Ex.A1 dated 24.2.1993. The complainant now states that the actual area comes to 220 sq. yards with measurement of 60’x 33’. The opposite party filed Ex.B26 and B27 to show that the actual plot measures 58’.4” x 33’.9” with covering area of 218.78 sq. yards. The measurement given by the opposite party shall be preferred as they are given an actual measurement. The excess land available is 17.08 sq. yards and not 18.33 sq. yards as pleaded by the complainant.
16. The complainant states that she has to pay Rs.228/- per sq. yard for the excess land as per the letter Ex.A18, the sheet showing break-up figures to arrive at the final cost of each plot. The opposite party pleads that the allottee shall pay the value for the excess land at prevailing market rate to be fixed by Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, APHB, as per G.O.Ms.NO.6 dated 29.3.2011, Ex.A29 is the copy of the G.O. In that G.O. it is noted that earlier the consumer forum, state commission and National commission had decided similar issue and the National Commission had issued directions to sell the excess land on the basis of sub-registrar’s value at the time of handing over the house with 12% interest and the APHB had implemented the said order. At the end of the G.O. the following table is given.
Sr.No | Stray pieces of land | Less than 100 sq. yards | More than 100 sq. yards |
1 | Adjacent to APHB allottees house and cannot be used by APHB in any manner or cannot be used for other purpose or where there is no access other than through allottees land | Basic value as on the date of handing over the houses plus 12% simple interest till the date of payment | Baisc value as on the date of handing over the houses plus 12% simple interest till the date of payment. |
2. | Adjacent to APHB allottees house with proper approach and can be put to use for some purpose | Prevailing market value | Tender-cum-auction, case APHB decided to dispose that land |
3 | To an adjacent house owners who is not an allottee of APHB | At the prevailing market value. | Tender-cum-auction, in case APHB decide to dispose that land. |
17. The National commission had an occasion to look into this aspect relating to sale of excess land to the allottees of APHB. The copy of the order in that batch of Revision Petitions 170/2007 to 173/2007 between Housing Board and four allottees is available in the record of CC.106/2009 on the file of this Forum. The brief order of the National Commission reads as follows:
“Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. None is present on behalf of the Respondent.
The common question of law and facts involved in all these Revision Petition relates to the value which is required to be paid by the allottees of the adjacent land, in respect of excess land of 15.16 sq. yds in R.P. No.170/07, 59.60 sq. yds in R.P. No.171/07, 15.78 sq. yds in R.P. No.172/07 and 41.03 sq. yds in R.P. NO.173/07. There is no dispute that the land was allotted and possession of the land including the excess area was given to the Respondents. Since the excess land was allotted the Petitioner, A.P. Housing Board, Vijayawada is entitled to claim its price. The question relate to what price should be changed.
Seeing the circumstances, it could not be the original price on the date when the allotment was made to the Respondents since it is the area which was not covered in allotment and possession was given by the A.P. Housing Board under the impression that it is the part and parcel of the allotted land. In eqity the A.P. Housing Board is entitled to charge the price for the excess land which was prevailing on the date of giving its possession to the respondents alongwith interest @ 12%.
The complainants have deposited the entire amount which was otherwise due and sale deeds have already been executed. The Petitioner shall send the demand letter to the Respondents in respect of excess area at the rate prevalent around the month or year of delivery of the possession in the light of the observations made herein above within six weeks. The Respondent shall pa the amount as demanded within six weeks thereafter. In case respondents fail to pay the amount of demand raised in above terms within six weeks the petitioner shall be entitled to take possession of the excess land. The amount which has already been paid by the complainants shall be adjusted by the petitioner in the light o allotment letter supplemented by this order in respect of excess area. The Revision Petitions are disposed on in above terms.
A copy of the order be sent to the Respondents by the Registry”.
18. As per the above order the Housing Board can collect the value of excess area at the rate prevalent around the month or the year of delivery of possession and the board is also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. In accordance with this order the G.O referred above had fixed the value for the extent less than 100 sq. yards at basic value as on the date of handing over of the house + 12% interest till the date of payment. Therefore the demand made by the opposite party is proper and the complainant cannot compel the opposite party to sell the excess land at the rate mentioned in Ex.A18 the calculation to arrive at final cost of the house.
19. It is found from the above discussion that the complainant is liable to pay the amounts still due as per the payment made under Ex.B24 same as Ex.A16, the complainant has to pay the value of the excess area of 17.08 sq. yards as per the value to be fixed by the Housing Board in accordance with G.O. No.6 dated 29.3.2011 and only thereafter the complainant is entitled to registration of the plot. The complainant wanted to get her plot registered in the name of her daughter and the opposite party had required 9th class certificate of the proposed purchaser. During arguments it is stated that they need such certificate to know the date of birth and age of the person in whose favour the document has to be executed. It is therefore a reasonable request and the complainant has to comply with the request. Since the opposite party had not denied registration of the plot unjustly and when their demand is justified we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Point No.2:
20. In view of the answer on point no.1 the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complainant is also not entitled to costs. We are not inclined to burden the complainant with costs as sufficiently long time was taken by the opposite party in finalizing the cost and in view of incorrect demand made earlier by the opposite party.
21. In the result this complaint is dismissed without costs. The complainant is at liberty to comply with the demand of the opposite party as observed in this order and seek registration of the MIG house and she will be at liberty to approach the Forum in case of deficiency if any.
Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 09th day of January, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
K. Pushpa Leela – PW-1. Executive Engineer, A.P.H.B,
(by affidavit) DW-1; (by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Exs.A1, A3, A4, A5, A7, A12 and A14 Letters from the opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of statement of account.
Exs.A6, A9, A10, A11, A13, A15, A19, A20 Letters from the opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A8 Photocopies of DDs.
Ex.A16 Photocopy of statement of account.
Ex.A17 Photocopy of payment details.
Ex.A18 Photocopy of details of construction of MIG & LIG houses.
Ex.A21 29.03.2011 Photocopy of GO
Ex.A22 21.03.2011 Copy of receipt.
Ex.A23 Photocopy of layout plan.
Ex.A24 Photocopy of registration plan.
Ex.A25 10.06.2012 Photocopy of certificate.
Ex.A26 10.06.2012 Copy of receipt.
Ex.A27 31.03.2012 copy of interest certificate.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Attested copy of application form.
Ex.B2 to B7, B9, B12, B.16, B.17, B.24 Attested copies letters issued by the opposite party to complainant.
Ex.B8 Attested copy of under taking.
Ex.B10 19.05.2010 Attested copy of letter issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.B11 20.01.1998 Attested copy of statement.
Ex.B13 Attested copy of break up calculation.
Ex.B14 Attested copy of penal interest calculation sheet.
Ex.B15 12.07.2010 Attested copy of letter issued by SE to EE.
Ex.B18 Attested copy of abstract of MIG 261
Ex.B19 Attested copy of statement of payment particulars.
Ex.B20 Attested copy of payments made by the allottee.
Ex.B21 Attested copy of break up calculation sheet.
Ex.B22 20.01.1997 Attested copy of penal interest calculation sheet
Ex.B23 Attested copy of statement.
Ex.B25 Attested copy of note to the executive engineer.
Ex.B26 Attested copy of registration plan of MIG 261.
Ex.B27 Attested copy of part layout of MIG.
Ex.B28 Attested copy of details of land.
Ex.B29 29.03.2011 29.03.2011 Photocopy of GO
PRESIDENT
