EXECUTIVE ENGINEER And ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, T.N.U.D.P. DIVISION vs D. RAVICHANDRAN

IN this appeal, the Executive Engineer, T.N.U.D.P. Division, Sowripalayam, Housing Unit Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore is the appellant. The respondent herein, as the complainant, laid the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to issue a No Objection Certificate [NOC] to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and costs.

THE complainant applied for allotment of a plot in Kalapatti Scheme and he was given an allotment order dated 8.12.94. Pursuant to the allotment order, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 17,550/- as advance. He has to pay the balance of Rs. 40,950/- with interest @ 12% p.a. in 15 years in monthly instalment of Rs. 491/-. THE complainant paid the balance amount by way of a single payment on 28.6.1995. THE complainant was asked to pay Rs. 1,700/- towards interest. THE same was also paid by the complainant. THE complainant wanted to construct a house in the allotted plot. Hence he approached CANFIN HOMES LTD. THEy asked for the original allotment letter and NOC, original Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, transfer certificate, sketch of the plot, etc. THErefore, the complainant approached the opposite party for the same and gave a letter on 17.2.1995 whereupon he was asked to pay Rs. 1,973/-. THE complainant sent a letter explaining in detail the entire facts and once again requested for issuance of NOC. But the opposite party purposely delayed the matter. THErefore, the complainant has come forward with this petition. In their version, the opposite party contended that the cost of the land was tentatively fixed at Rs. 58,500/- on which sum interest at 12% p.a. was payable and after the initial deposit, the allottee had to pay the interest at 12% p.a. and the complainant had to pay the balance of Rs. 40,950/- by way of monthly instalment of Rs. 491/- for 15 years commencing from April, 1995. The complainant was irregular in paying the amount and allowed accumulation of interest and penal interest. As per the accounts maintained by the Housing Board, a sum of Rs. 1,973/- is still due from the complainant. Only on payment of such amount, NOC could be issued to put up a building in the allotted plot. Inasmuch as the complainant failed to pay the entire amount due, he cannot claim NOC by way of a right. Therefore, the opposite party submitted that the complaint should be dismissed.

The crux of the case is that the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,973/- and that without paying the said sum he cannot claim the NOC. In this connection, the opposite party has also submitted an extract of accounts along with their version. The complainant has entered into a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement as evidenced by Ex. B.1 which stipulates that the complainant shall occupy the premises on and from March, 1995 and shall pay a sum of Rs. 491/- every month for a period of 15 years and such rent shall be adjusted towards the interest payable by the Lessee/Purchaser on the sale consideration. Interest @ 12% is also payable by the Lessee/Purchaser. On such payment the Lessee/Purchaser shall be obliged to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on all rent which has fallen in arrears and which remains unpaid. Condition No. 21 stipulates that on settling the accounts for completion of the sale transaction in the manner stated therein, the Lessor/Vendor will not be obliged to execute the sale deed to the Lessee and the sale deed will be issued only on payment of the full cost. It is also provided in Condition No. 22 that if any of the conditions is breached, the allotment will stand cancelled. Condition No. 23 specifies that the lessee/purchaser confirms that the agreement shall be subject to the terms and conditions. Therefore, having entered into such an agreement, it is not open to the complainant to allege deficiency of service when it is he who has committed breach of the same. In fact, it is also stated in the agreement that even if the period of 10 years or 15 years had elapsed, even then, unless the entire payment is made and until the lessee/purchaser paid any additional amount as claimed by the Housing Board, only then the lessee will be entitled to execution of the sale deed. Here in this case, we find from the records produced, that the approximate value of the site was fixed at Rs. 58,500/- and advance amount for that was fixed at Rs. 17,550/- and the balance was reckoned at Rs. 40,950/- which had to be paid over a period of 15 years @ Rs. 491/- per month and that if there is default in payment of any instalment it shall carry interest @ 15% p.a. The allotment order was made on 8.12.1994 and by their letter dated 15.5.1995, they informed about the conditions of the agreement and requiring him to pay the instalments from 4/95. While so, only in June, 1995 he has paid the balance of Rs. 40,950/-. The Housing Board has written to say that a sum of Rs. 1,973/- is still due. But despite the same, the amount has not been paid. In the proceedings before the Consumer Forum, it is not open to the complainant to say that he is not liable or the account maintained by the Housing Board is incorrect. We cannot go into the question of accountability or determine the liability and the extent of liability on the transaction in such proceedings. Only if there is a deficiency of service we can step in to alleviate the sufferings of the consumer. Here, the case is that as per the agreement the amount has not been paid. If in spite of payment of the amount the Board refused to issue any certificate, that may very well come within the ambit of this Act. But when it is not so, it is not open to the complainant to come with an application under this Act for a direction to the Housing Board to issue NOC when the amount that is due to be settled is not paid. Hence, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum has not taken note of this fact and erred in holding that there is deficiency of service. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a matter that would fall within the ambit of deficiency of service and hence the question of issuance of any direction to the Housing Board for the issuance of NOC does not arise.

CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Considering the nature of the claim, the amount that is said to be due from the complainant, we are of the view that it is a fit case where both the parties be directed to bear their own costs throughout. However, it is made clear that if the complainant pays the amount as claimed by the Housing Board, the Housing Board shall expedite the issuance of NOC. Appeal allowed.