BATAKRUSHNA DAS CHOUDHURY vs Orissa State Housing Board

THIS is an original case wherein the complainant challenges the illegal demand by the Orissa State Housing Board (''the Board'', for short) of escalation cost in respect of house No. MIG-210 in Shailashree Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Phase-VII and claims compensation for having been allotted a defective house.

ADMITTEDLY, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 3 lakhs by 29.5.1991, the first payment of E.M.D. of Rs. 50,000/- being on 2.1.1990. Though the Board promised him to deliver possession of the house some time in December, 1991, possession was delivered on 4.1.1993. There is no dispute with regard to this fact. Complainant''s allegation is that the initial cost of house was Rs. 2.5 lakhs and this was raised to Rs. 3 lakhs and thereafter to Rs. 3,47,800/-. He claims that the escalation is about 33 per cent which is arbitrary and, therefore, should be limited to only 10 per cent and nothing more than that. The other grievance is that he was not liable to pay any interest because due to delay in delivering possession of the house, he has suffered for having incurred loan from financial institution. Thirdly, he has suffered from mental stress and agony having been delivered a defective house. The Board filed a written version. It did not admit of any deficiency in service. As regards escalation cost their stand is because of the increase in the labour cost, cost of fuel and on account of heavy rain, there was delay in completion of the project. As regards charging interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum it is stated that the complainant is bound by the agreement and since there was delay in payment of the instalments fixed by the Board, he is liable to pay interest. As regards defect of the house they stated that whatever defects were pointed out by the complainant were rectified.

We have heard Mr. S.C. Jena, learned Counsel for the complainant, and Mr. S.K. Nayak (I), learned Counsel for the Board, and have perused the documents on record. We propose to dispose of the matter in the following manner.

SO far as the point of escalation is concerned, we cannot adjudicate the matter, as has been held by the National Commission in various decisions and in our earlier judgments is similar cases against Board. This relief regarding escalation cost is, therefore, rejected. So far as defects in the house are concerned , the documents from the side of the Board, particularly Annexure-K dated 4.1.1993, i.e. the document of handing over possession prove that physical delivery of possession was given on 4.1.1993. The complainant by his letter dated 30.10.1992 addressed to the Project Engineer of the Board mentioned to have visited the site on 27.10.1992 and there was a joint inspection with the Junior Engineer and he found the various works not completed and also there were certain defects, such as crack lines on the surface of the outside plaster, crack lines in the front Verandah, mosaic floor and upper wall in the kitchen ''bleeding''. He again reitereated these thing in his letter dated 20th July, 1993, i.e., after taking possession of the house on 4.1.1993. The Board in the written version took the stand that they rectified the defects. But not a scrap of paper has been filed to show that in fact they have removed the defects.

IN similar cases of this nature we have awarded compensation for such defective house varying from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. IN the present case, we hold that the cost of repair of the defects pointed out by the complainant from his side would be reasonably a sum of Rs. 30,000/- which we award for payment to the complainant. So far as payment of interest claimed by the Board against the complainant for his default in paying the instalments in time, is concerned, we held that there was some amount of delay on the part of the complainant in paying the amount. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with whatever amount the Board must have received from the complainant till he paid Rs. 3 lakhs. But charging any interest beyond that date would be illegal and if any amount has been realised should be refunded to the complainant. So far as the claim of the complainant that he is entitled to interest is concerned, we find him to be justified in so claiming, because the Board held out that possession should be delivered some time during December, 1991 by which date the complainant had already deposited Rs. 3 lakhs. Had he deposited this amount in any fixed deposit in any Bank, he would have received interest at the minimum rate of 10 per cent per annum as was prevalent at that time. Possession was delivered on 4.1.1993. Thus, there was delay of two years. We, therefore, held that complainant is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs for two years at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. But however we allow consolidated interest of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

IN the result, the complaint petition is allowed in part. The Board is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) to the complainant along with a consolidated interest of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand). We have not felt it proper to award any further compensation since we have awarded interest. No costs. Complaint partly allowed.