CHAIRMAN, STATE HOUSING BOARD vs BHAGABAN UPADHAYA

THIS matter was fixed for hearing today on the question of stay and limitation for which notice had been issued to the respondent. The respondent has entered appearance through Counsel and the Counsel for the appellants is present. For the purpose of limitation, we had required the District Forum to supply the documents in evidence of the service of the copy of the order on the parties in C.D. Case No. 88 of 1994. But it appears from the records that the District Forum has not been informed about the same till now. While going to adjourn this case requiring the office to send intimation to the District Forum in that behalf, the learned Counsel for both parties requested for disposal of the case on merits without lingering it any further. Their contention is that for arguing on the question of stay, the Commission will be required to go into the merits of the matter and it is better that the appeal itself is disposed of without deferring the matter for hearing on the question of limitation on a future date. With the consent of the respondent, the limitation in presentation of the appeal is condoned and the case is taken up for hearing at the request of the parties. THIS appeal is directed against the final order passed by the District Forum, Keonjhar in C.D. Case No. 88 of 1994. The facts leading to the filing of the consumer dispute before the District Porum are simple in the sense that the complainant had applied for allotment of a house under the M.I.G. Housing Scheme to the Orissa State Housing Board pursuant to the advertisement made in the Samaj in the year 1981. One of the requirements for eligibility and consideration of the application for allotment of a house was that the complainant was to make an initial deposit of a sum of Rs. 18,479/- and the balance was to be paid in instalments. It is stated by the complainant that the said amount of Rs.18,479/- was deposited by him on 16.8.90 where after an agreement was executed on 28.4.92. According to the complainant, the agreement was registered on 26.5.92 where after possession of the house was to be made over to him. It has been alleged by him that after the registration of the agreement he approached the present appellants several times, but to no effect. He has also stated that the house was not complete in 1992 and the construction of houses in question was completed in the year 1994. Since the possession of the house was not delivered to him within the stipulated period, he wanted for refund of the deposited amount together with interest and compensation. The stand of the present appellants before the District Forum was that one of the terms of the delivery of possession of the house was that after the registration of the agreement, the complainant was to deposit the receipt in evidence of the registration of the agreement where after the possession could have been delivered. Since the complainant did not file any document in evidence of registration of the agreement the Housing Board could not deliver possession of the house and, therefore, the prayer for refund of the money deposited together with interest and compensation is not maintainable.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties, came to a conclusion that the Housing Board took unusual length of time in completing the construction of the house, and, therefore, the applicant is not expected to wait for unlimited period of time for delivery of possession of the house. It also held that there has been no explanation by the present appellants why the complainant will not be entitled to take refund of the aforesaid amount deposited by him after execution of the registration of the agreement in question. THE District Forum ultimately held that the present appellants are liable to refund the sum of Rs. 18,479/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 26.5.92 within a month from the date of receipt of the order.A compensation of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded against the appellants. Hence this appeal. During the course of hearing of the appeal, each of the parties reiterated their pleas taken before the District Forum. We have reasons to believe that even though the agreement in question was executed and registered on 26.5.92, the house was not complete by then and, therefore, the complainant could not be given delivery of possession of the house even if he did not submit any document in proof of the registration of the document. It is stated by the District Forum in the impugned order that the complainant has already constructed a house of his own and is no more interested in getting the house. In the context of these facts and circumstances, we hold that the direction for refund of the money deposited by the complainant is reasonable and there is no justification to interfere with the said direction. Strenuous arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the money so deposited by the complainant will not carry any interest inasmuch as the money deposited by the complainant was utilised in construction of the house to be allotted in his favour and, therefore, the direction to pay interest will cause hardship on the Housing Board. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both parties in this behalf and we are of the view that the Housing Board could not give possession of the house by the stipulated period and the matter was deferred for some reason or the other mainly for the reason that the construction of the house was not complete. In such circumstances, the complainant was deprived of the use of his money as it was deposited before the Housing Board and the advantage thereof was availed of by the Housing Board either by depositing the same or by spending it for construction of the house. It is well known that in view of the escalation of price in building materials and labour, the money invested by the Housing Board in construction of the house itself would bring a profit to the Housing Board when it is ultimately sold or allotted in favour of some other intending purchaser. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum. We, therefore, confirm the direction of the District Forum for refund of the money deposited by the complainant and interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable by the present appellants from 26.5.92 till the date of payment.

The next point which was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant is unjustified. According to him, there has been practically no deficiency on the part of the Housing Board inasmuch as the possession could not be delivered to the complainant for reasons beyond their control. It was argued at the first instance that the registered agreement or the evidence in proof of the registration of the deed was not produced by the complainant and therefore possession could not be delivered to him. But when it was pointed out that the house itself was not complete in the year 1992 around the time when the agreement was registered it was argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board that the delay in completion of the house is not due to any lapses or deficiency on the part of the Housing Board but for reasons beyond their control. The compensation has not been awarded for delay in delivery of possession of the house. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that no separate compensation is payable inasmuch as payment of interest is also compensation for the detention of the money in the hands of the appellants.

IN the result, we partly allow this appeal quashing the direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and modify the directions passed by the District Forum accordingly. For clarification it is stated that the Housing Board shall refund the amount of Rs. 18,479/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 26.5.92 till the date of payment and shall not pay any compensation in addition thereto as directed by the District Forum. The payment so directed be made within a month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall be recoverable by process of law. Appeal partly allowed.