ALLOTTEE SERVICE MANAGER vs J.M.KUPPUSAMY

THE opposite party-Housing Board against which an order has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant.

THE complainant (respondent herein) was an allottee of a plot by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at a total cost of Rs. 16,683/-. According to the complainant he has paid all the instalments payable by him towards the said cost by 27.1.87. THE opposite party issued ''No Objection Certificate'' on 27.5.87 for the complainant to obtain a loan by mortgaging the plot. He has put up the construction and after the completion of 5 years, on payment of the full cost of the p lot and interest and also penal interest he applied for Sale Deed on 16.12.93. THE opposite party had also issued a ''No Due Certificate'' on 7.10.88. While so, the opposite party suddenly asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 7,912/- as carrying charges. This amounts the complainant is not liable to pay. THE opposite party-Housing Board have not yet executed the Sale Deed. This amounts to deficiency in service on his part. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to issue the Sale Deed without demanding any amount and also to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation. The opposite party contended that they received communication from the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (M.M.D.A.) before receiving a letter from the complainant for executing the Sale Deed instructing the opposite party to collect carrying charges for all the allotments made after 12/85 as per Resolution No. 43/83. Such carrying charges in this case came to Rs. 7,912/- and the complainant was informed to pay this amount. Since the complainant has not paid this amount the opposite party could not execute the Sale-Deed. As such there was no deficiency in service on their part.

The District Forum on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and therefore, it has ordered them to execute the Sale Deed and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages.

IN the appeal, on going through the order of the District Forum and other papers carefully we are in agreement with the finding of the District Forum that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. It is not in dispute that ''No Objection Certificate'' has been issued to the complainant and subsequently on 7.10.88 ''No Due Certificate'' has also been issued. Certainly the complainant would be under the impression that no payment of any further amount arises and he would be entitled to Sale Deed. While so, to opposite party Housing Board on the instruction of M.M.D.A. have written letter to the complainant on 31.3.94 that he should pay Rs. 7,912/- as carrying charges. Having issued No Due Certificate without any condition whatsoever therein, it is not open to the opposite parties to demand any more amount much less Rs. 7,912/- claimed by them. Therefore, it is clear that the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service as held by the District Forum. Hence it is correct that the District Forum has ordered the opposite parties to issue the Sale Deed Coming to the order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, considering the circumstances in the case we are of the view that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. The opposite parties themselves have not demanded further sum as carrying charges but they have made the demand only on the instructions by the M.M.D.A. We are of the view that an award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- will meet the ends of justice.

WE accordingly order that the opposite parties shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as damages instead of Rs. 10,000/- ordered by the District Forum. With this modification regarding the compensation amount the order of the District Forum is confirmed. Thus, the appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.