HOUSING COMMISSIONER, U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD vs DHARAMDAS KHEMNANI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.7.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Agra in Complaint Case No. 652/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for one MIG quarter in the scheme ''Sikandra Yojna'' Sector IV on 22.2.1979 and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and got his registration. On 27.12.1979 he received one letter from opposite party No. 2 stating therein that as the income of the complainant is more, he is not entitled to MIG quarter and demanded Rs. 2,000/- more as registration money. THE draft of Rs. 2,000/- was also sent to opposite party No. 1 Housing Commissioner. THEreafter complainant himself went to Lucknow on 21.11.1981 and obtained one registration letter for MIG. At the time of registration of MIG quarter, registration fee for the same was Rs. 5,000/- in the year 1985, but it was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- more as registration amount. THE registration for MIG thereafter was done on 31.8.1986. It is further alleged that from the year 1979 to 1990 he met employees of the opposite party for allotment of a quarter to him as the terms of the brochure indicated that the possession shall be delivered within three years. However, even after 12 years no house has been allotted to him. In the meantime opposite parties asked the complainant to deposit the entire money and only then house will be allotted to him. THEreafter he deposited the entire amount on 6.6.1991 and in the month of June, 1991 house No. 75, Sector 11 was allotted to him and he also received a letter on 13.8.1991. The complainant was also assured that he will be granted a loan by U.P. Cooperative Avas Sangh, Branch Jaipur House, Agra for a loan with respect to the above house. He deposited Rs. 65,335/- on 11.2.1992. The rest amount of Rs. 58,500/- was also deposited by him in September, 1992. Thus he deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,88,850/-.

Thereafter the complainant visited the house and found that there was no window, roofs were not plastered and the house was not in a complete habitable condition. The complainant made a complaint about this fact to the opposite party but nothing was done. He could not get the possession of the house. The price of the house was increased and he also deposited the increased price of the quarter. As the condition of the quarter was not worth living, therefore, the complainant applied for refund of the amount deposited by him. Complainant had claimed refund of Rs. 1,88,500/- alongwith 24% per annum interest and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

THE opposite parties in the written statement alleged that the complainant had not paid the cost of the house till the date fixed. Hence he is liable to pay additional interest on the delayed payment. Till 31.3.1994 a sum of Rs. 39,115/- was outstanding against the cost of the house and if there was any defect in the house, he should have stopped payment of the house and for the rest amount he could have asked to pay back. The complainant was also informed to deposit this much amount failing which his allotment order will be cancelled. On the assurance given by the complainant, the allotment order was not cancelled and he was given time to deposit the amount. It was also intimated to the complainant that before handing over the possession of the house, it will be completed and an NOC from Avas Sangh was necessary. The NOC was not issued by the Avas Sangh and as such the possession could not be delivered to the complainant. As far as the construction of the house is concerned, it is a well-constructed house and the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation.

THE learned District Forum, after perusing the evidence on record, directed the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith 15% per annum interest as damages and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental torture, distress and mental agony. Aggrieved against this order of the District Forum, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

THE learned District Forum had in its judgment come to the conclusion that the material used, according to the complainant, was of sub-standard quality but the Housing Board had not produce any evidence to show that the constructions were in good shape. As a matter of fact the development authority had removed the defects existing in the house which shows that the house was not completely constructed and the defective material was used in the construction of the house. It has also come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay in delivering possession of the house to the complainant. On these accounts the learned District Forum held that there was negligence on the part of the Housing Board and it amounted to deficiency in service.

WE are also of the same opinion because the complainant had deposited the initial amount of Rs. 3,000/- on 28.2.1979 and even after the deposit of the registration amount in full, no house was allotted to the complainant in that category for which he had applied. In the meantime the cost of the house was increased and he deposited the same also alongwith other amounts about which the loan was sanctioned by Avas Sangh. If Avas Sangh had made delay in advancing the loan, then the complainant cannot be blamed for any delay which occurred from the side of the Avas Sangh and the complainant was not responsible for not depositing the amount in time. The complainant per allegations of the complaint was assured by the Housing Board that the loan shall be sanctioned by the Avas Sangh. If on account of certain facts the Avas Sangh did not sanctioned the loan in time, for which he has already applied, then delay in depositing of the amount will not be a ground for not refunding the amount. Thus the deficiency in service of the Housing Board, appellant, is proved on record and the order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly right and no interference is required either in the rate of interest allowed or in the compensation granted. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. No order as to the costs. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.