CHHATTISGARH GRIH NIRMAN MANDAL vs PREMSAGAR @ SUKHSAGAR MALHOTRA

THIS is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for convenience) in Complaint No. 74/2009 on 6/2003.

THE complainant have narrated that they were allotted flat No. 301 type B under a hire purchase agreement and obtained possession of the same in February, 1999. It is further contended that from May, 2003 the adjoining flat No. 303 is being used for running a commercial Institution, IT kids and Computer Mother unauthorisedly and this has created a nuisance for the complainants. It is also alleged that since the complainants objected to the use of the flat for other than residential purposes, they were manhandled and threatened on phone to vacate the flat in their occupation so much so even to the extent that their daughter will be kidnapped. Under the circumstances complainants approached the opposite party/appellant to ensure stopping of the nuisance or to allot one of the newly constructed flats in Raipur Naka, in exchange of the existing flat on prevailing terms and conditions or permit surrender of the allotted flat and refund the amount deposited with interest. A legal notice dated 9.2.2002 was also sent to the O.P./appellant but no action was taken despite Clause 8 of the allotment order, which mentions that the allotment is for exclusively residential purposes. The O.P./appellants in their written version admitted the facts of allotment of flat No. 301 to the complainant/appellant and running of IT Kids and IT Mother''s institution in flat No. 303. It is further contended that the allottee of the flat No. 303 was asked not to permit use of the flat for commercial purpose and a complaint has been filed before the competent authority Housing Board on 5.12.2000 as well as SDM, Durg under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

The appellants have also submitted that if the complainant/respondent wishes to surrender the flat he will be required to pay economic rent @ Rs. 5480/- per month for the period of occupation and as per rules it is not possible to allot a flat at Raipur Naka scheme in exchange. The District Forum in its order dated 6.11.2003 has held the appellants deficient in service and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the complainant till the nuisance ceases. An amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation also has been awarded.

BOTH the parties have submitted affidavits in support of their contentions along with copies of various letters and other correspondence. On perusal of the copies of the letters filed by the complainant/respondent it appears that he had written several letters to the appellant seeking relief by putting stop to the nuisance on 18.8.2000, 28.8.2000, and sent legal notice on 9.2.2002. The residents association also appears to have given a joint memorandum on 20.6.2000. It appears that the appellants chose not to reply to any of the letters or the legal notice to the complainants and initiated action on 5.12.2000 by writing to the Competent Officer of the Housing Board for action. The complainant also got registered a case under Section 133, Cr.P.C. before the SDM, Durg on the complaint. The appellants have challenged the impugned order on the ground that they are not directly responsible for the nuisance in question and the District Forum has erred in awarding compensation against the appellants. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since the nuisance was not a creation of the Board hence the award of compensation is unjustified and the owner of flat No. 303 alone is responsible for creating nuisance by letting it out for a commercial purpose has not been made party to the complaint.

THE Madhya Pradesh Housing Board was constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, a State Act and is succeeded by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for brevity) after the Chhattisgarh State came into existence. Section 34 of the said Act provides for preparation of development schemes and layouts, planning for open lands, roads, sanitation and other amenities and sell plots on hire purchase or outright sale basis. The Board is also empowered to deal with cases of breach of the provisions of the act, violations of the scheme or the terms of allotment by appointing Competent Officer under Section 55(3). The obvious purpose of conferral of such powers on the Board appears to enable it to regulate the scheme aimed at systematic and planned development of housing. It goes without saying that the powers are necessarily followed by certain responsibilities also. It is not in dispute that the scheme under which allotment of flat was made to the respondents was exclusively for residential purpose. Therefore, the lease deed cannot be isolated from the scheme and a restriction as regards use is meant to fulfil the objective of the scheme. Construction and sale of flats also has to be viewed in the larger and overall perspective of the said scheme. As narrated by the complainant/respondent in the complaint he purchased the flat on the understanding that the norms of the scheme under Section 34 will be followed. Thus the Board was expected to act on the complaint within a reasonable time. In our view the activities of the Board cannot be equated with other builders nor can it escape its responsibility cast under the Act. The responsibilities of the Board do not cease with the allotment of houses just as other builders. Therefore, reluctance of the Board to deal with the repeated complaints of breach of terms of allotment within a reasonable time cannot but be termed a deficiency in service. Therefore, the appellants were under obligation to take suitable steps to ensure compliance of the said condition in which they are found lacking for several months. The appellant also does not appear to have replied to any of the letters of the complainant.

THUS in our opinion the District Forum was justified in holding the appellants deficient in service. However, under the circumstances of the case and since the nuisance has ceased to exist, as informed by the complainant, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation appears sufficient to meet the ends of justice and order of the District Forum is modified as regards the amount of compensation. The parties shall bear their own cost in this appeal. Appeal disposed of.