ALLAM ASLAM vs TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

IT is the complainant who is in appeal before us. He is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint wherein he had alleged deficiency of service on the part of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Housing Board).

COMPLAINANT read an advertisement in the daily "Hindu" in July, 1991 which advertisement was given by the Housing Board. The advertisement was regarding construction of flats on invitation of applications for allotment. Complainant, in terms of advertisement made an application for allotment of flat and he had paid registration fee of Rs. 5,000/- on 21.8.1991. He received a letter dated 20.4.1992 from the Housing Board informing him that he had been allotted an HIG ''C'' Type Flat No. 19/4, First Floor. It was stated in the letter that this flat was allotted to him under outright purchase basis and he was required to make the payment of tentative price of Rs. 2,13,600/- within one month of the receipt of the allotment letter. This allotment was received by the complainant on 1.5.1992. Complainant, thereafter wrote to the Housing Board conveying his acceptance to the offer of allotment and at the same time required that he may be issued certificates in form ''A and B'' for him to apply for loan as well as a No Objection from the Housing Board to mortgage the flat in the name of his employer - the Madras Port Trust. These forms were issued to him. Complainant made an application to the Madras Port Trust for raising of loan and also obtained loan for G.P. Fund Account. On the basis of the loan received from his GPF A/c complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 72,600/- with the Housing Board on 29.5.1992. He sought for further one month''s time to pay the balance amount. He did not receive any reply thereto. He then visited the site and found that Block No. 19 where flat on the first floor was supposedly allotted to him had not been constructed at all. He, therefore, wrote another letter to the Housing Board requesting for a date be fixed for inspection of the premises since that was necessary for grant of loan after mortgaging the flat. Again there was no response. Instead on 21.8.1992 complainant received a notice from the Housing Board canceling his allotment altogether on the ground that complainant had not paid full price of the flat. Complainant protested but he did not receive any reply. He, therefore, filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board. He sought that the order cancelling his allotment be revoked and that balance amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- be accepted or in the alternative he may be granted other reliefs. It was submitted by the Housing Board that when the complainant did not stick to the condition of allotment inasmuch as he did not pay the price within one month on receipt of the allotment letter the allotment had to be cancelled. It is also submitted that in the advertisement it was mentioned that the scheme would be finalised only after assessing the demand from the public and it was nowhere indicated that the flats were constructed and were readily available. It was thus submitted that the allotment was cancelled as per rule and that therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of Housing Board as alleged. State Commission upheld the contention of the Housing Board as to the plea that no response was necessary to be given by the Housing Board to the communication of the complainant. State Commission was of the view that Housing Board was not required to reply to each and every communication received from the complainant. We think that was unfortunate comment to make. It may be stated that Housing Board is not required to reply to every letter but when letters of substance were written and time is sought for making payment and also for inspection of flats for the purpose of raising loan it was the duty of the Housing Board to respond to the complainant and to apprise him of the correct position. That admittedly was not done. State Commission noticed that on the date of allotment of the flat not an inch of the flat has been constructed. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why certificates in Forms A and B were issued by the Housing Board for the complainant to mortgage the flat for raising loan from his employer, Madras Port Trust. We do not think it should be the case of the Housing Board that when there is no construction there could still be mortgage. We do not think in the circumstances of the case there is any other view possible except to hold that Housing Board was deficient in service. It had rather misled the complainant and other persons similarly situated. To our specific query it was submitted by the complainant who argued his case in person that at present no flat is available which could be allotted to him.

IT was then submitted before us by the complainant that during the pendency of the complaint the amount of Rs. 72,600/- paid by him was refunded to him on 12.1.1996 with interest @ 8% per annum. In the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar, I (2002) CPJ 33 (NC) = Revision Petition No. 1197/98 decided on 31.8.2001, in similar circumstances we had awarded interest @ 18% per annum by way of compensation which includes interest at the Bank rate on fixed deposits at the relevant time and 7% as cost of escalation.

WE , therefore, direct that the amount of Rs. 72,600/- paid by the complainant shall carry interest from the respective dates of deposits made, @ 18% per annum till payment. From this the amount paid on 12.1.1996 with interest @ 8% shall stand adjusted. Housing Board shall calculate balance amount payable and shall pay the same within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant shall also be entitled to cost of this appeal which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, order of the State Commission is set aside and complaint is allowed in the terms above mentioned.