EXECUTIVE ENGINEER And ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, TNHB vs R. THILAGAR

-THE complainant laid the complaint stating that for the house allotted to him the entire cost of the house viz., Rs. 1,58,700/- was deposited by him and that the Housing Board failed to hand over possession in time and that they failed to effect certain repairs and, therefore the complainant is entitled to interest on the said sum of Rs. 1,58,700/- from 20.9.1993 to 20.8.1995 @ 8% p.a. in a sum of Rs. 24,384/- plus the cost of the petition.

THIS complaint was opposed by the Housing Board which, among other contentions, stated that the complainant was informed as early as 21.2.1993 that the house was ready for occupation and that the complainant failed to take possession and even the small repairs that were pointed out by the complainant were also carried out and that in spite of it, it is the complainant who delayed taking possession of the house and that he took possession only on 1.10.1994 and there was no deficiency in service and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The District Forum accepted the contentions of the complainant and directed the opposite party viz., Housing Board to pay a sum of Rs. 22,174/- plus a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party Housing Board has come forward with this appeal.

ON going through the records, we find that the complainant''s claim is untenable on facts. We find by their letter dated 19.4.1993, the complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,58,700/-. This was required to be deposited within 30 days from 19.4.1993. The amount was actually deposited by the complainant somewhat belatedly. ON 7.10.1994, an intimation was sent by the Housing Board stating that the house is ready and it was taken possession of by the complainant on 10.10.1994. He has to pay the rent according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. He had sent a request for extension of validity of "A&B" Certificate which was also done. He was required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,250/- which was also paid by him. Now after all these correspondences, the house which was fit for occupation from 19.2.1994 was not taken possession of by the complainant in spite of the letter dated 2.2.1994 and he has finally taken possession of only in the month of October, 1994. The records will disclose that he purposely delayed taking of possession. Having delayed taking possession and after taking possession in October, 1994, he has come forward with this complaint in the month of October, 1996. In such circumstances we had to see whether there is a merit in this complaint. According to the Housing Board, even the minor repairs which were complained of by the complainant were carried out. Therefore, after having taking possession in the month of October, 1994, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that there is any deficiency in service. It is not known under what provision of law the complainant can claim interest on the sale price paid by him. He has claimed interest on a sum of Rs. 1,58,700/- paid by him towards sale price from 20.9.1993 to 20.8.1995. It may be that the complainant has borrowed from the LIC and that he had to pay interest. Even, according to the complainant, he has made several deposits in the year 1995. It is not known under what provision of law such a complaint can be maintained at all. He has paid the sale price. He has been given possession of property and he has taken possession and has been living in that house for more than 2 years before the date of complaint. From the records we find that if at all, there is a delay in the matter of taking possession, it was on account of the conduct of the complainant and not that of the Board. Therefore, it is not known how the complaint can be maintained for payment of interest on a sale price in consideration of which already the house has been constructed and handed over to the complainant. There are no reasons given by the lower Forum for awarding interest. We do not know how a claim for interest can be entertained before a Consumer Forum. It cannot fall under the ambit of deficiency in service. If at all any such claim can be maintained only in a Civil Court. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the order of the lower Forum cannot be maintained. Consequently, the order of the lower Forum has been set aside. Hence, this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250/-. The order of the lower Forum namely District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srivilliputhur is hereby set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed, but without costs. Appeal allowed with costs.