Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer vs R.Perumal

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.3.1997 in O.P. 627/1993 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore. The appellants are the opposite parties while the respondent is the complainant.

ESSENTIAL facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may in brevity be related. The complainant was allotted a flat in IUDP Division - Tamilnadu Housing Board, South of Perur Road, Selvapuram, Coimbatore. The total cost of the flat is Rs. 18,000/-. The entire cost of the flat had been paid by the complainant immediately after the receipt of the allotment order. He took possession of the flat on 17.12.1981. He had been demanded the execution of the sale deed from the opposite party, Housing Board. The opposite party, Housing Board did not at all respond in the sense of execution of a sale deed. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite party, Housing Board the complainant would say, is deficiency in service.

Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite party, Housing Board in pith and substance contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. What they would contend is that the cost of the flat as intimated to the complainant is only a tentative cost, not a final and full cost of the flat. Since the final cost has not been arrived at, the same was unable to be fixed and a sale deed was not executed in favour of the complainant by the Housing Board. THE complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below, after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Housing Board in the sense of not executing the sale deed notwithstanding the fact that the Housing Board has received full and final cost of the flat even before the complainant took possession of the flat. So holding, the Forum below directed the opposite party, Housing Board to pay to the complainant compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 400/-.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite party, Housing Board resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. K. Ganesan. On service of process, the respondent/complainant entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. P. Edward and Bharathi Edward. When this matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel representing the respondent/complainant were called absent and no representation was made on their behalf. The fact that those learned Counsel were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, after hearing learned Counsel Mr. K. Ganesan, appearing for the appellants/opposite parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record. That is what exactly we have done in this case.

LEARNED Counsel Mr. K. Ganesan, appearing for the appellant would with all vehemence and force contend that the order of the Forum below is not at all sustainable in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In amplification of this submission, what he would say is that Rs. 18,000/- is not full and final cost of the flat allotted to the complainant and it is only a tentative cost and unless and until the final cost as demanded by the Housing Board had been paid by the complainant on proper intimation to him, the execution of the sale deed by the Housing Board in favour of the complainant would never arise for consideration and in this view of the matter, he would further say that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board. This sort of an argument as projected by the said learned Counsel is not deriving any sort of a solidified support from the materials placed on record. In the allotment order namely, Ex. A2 dated 8.6.1981, the complainant had been intimated that the firm cost of the flat is Rs. 18,000/-. On receiving the said allotment order, the complainant also paid the full cost of the flat by means of a cheque to the opposite party, Housing Board and the Housing Board in turn also issued receipt Ex. A4 dated 6.7.1984 the official receipt for the receipt of the full cost of Rs. 18,000/-. The fact remains that till up to the year 1993, the opposite party, Housing Board did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant despite demands made by him several times. Consequently, there was no other go for the complainant to the launching of a complaint before the Forum below as against the opposite party, Housing Board in the year 1993 attributing deficiency in service on their part for their not executing the sale deed in his favour despite the receipt of the full amount of consideration for the flat.

THE Forum below referred to the various documents filed in this case and stated that in all places the cost of the flat has been referred to as the full and final cost. When the opposite party, Housing Board stated so, the Forum below would state it is incumbent upon them to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant after they have received the full amount of consideration for the allotment of flat to the complainant. THE fact that the Housing Board had been delaying the matter for pretty long in not executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant despite the receipt of the full cost, the Forum below would say that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Housing Board. No doubt true it is, as has been pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that in Ex. A2 allotment order, the Housing Board referred the cost of the flat of Rs. 18,000/- is the probable firm cost. We are unable to understand the terminology probable firm cost as stated in Ex. A2 allotment order. THE expression probable firm cost of Rs. 18,000/- referred to therein figures in the last pararaph of the said allotment order. THE said paragraph reads as under : "Regular allotment order will be issued on hearing from you. THE firm cost of the flat is Rs. 18,000/-. THE probable firm cost of Rs. 18,000/- is also acceptable in the form of demand draft or pay order drawn in favour of ''Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, IUDP Division, Coimbatore-641 030''." THE second sentence of the last paragraph, as extracted above, refers to the cost of the flat of Rs. 18,000/- as firm cost. In the very next sentence, the said cost of Rs. 18,000/- is referred to as probable firm cost. THE second sentence referring to the cost of Rs. 18,000/- as probable firm cost, in such a situation, has no meaning at all when especially the earlier sentence referred to the cost of the flat of Rs. 18,000/- as being the firm cost. Pertinent it is to note at this juncture that the opposite party, Housing Board did not at all file any agreement that came into existence between the complainant and the Housing Board containing the terms and conditions. If such an agreement had been filed, we would have been in a position to understand the cost of Rs. 18,000/- as fixed in the allotment order is the tentative cost or the final cost of the flat. THE fact that such an agreement is not filed is positive proof of the fact to make it appear that there is no term in such an agreement to the effect that the cost of Rs. 18,000/- as fixed in the allotment order Ex. A2 is not the tentative cost but only a final and full cost. We have to state here as has been stated by the Forum below that the act of the opposite parties, Housing Board in not effecting the sale deed in favour of the complainant for pretty long after the receipt of the entire consideration for the flat would tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, Housing Board. The Forum below after all granted compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties, Housing Board for the deficiency in service on their part. The quantum of compensation so ordered, we rather feel, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case rather appears to be reasonable not calling for interference.

The Forum below also awarded cost in a sum of Rs. 400/- which we also feel is reasonable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The order of the Forum below, as such, deserves to be confirmed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.