HRUSHIKESH DASH vs Orissa State Housing Board

THIS is an original case against the Orissa State Housing Board in which the complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of the Board authorities for arbitrarily enhancing the costs of the building, and delivering possession of a defective house with regard to the flooring, sub-standard brick works and with various defects, etc. It is his case that he applied for allotment of a house as per an advertisement since 1988 under Annexure-1. House was assured to be completed by December, 1989. The Board completed the house by February, 1993. For this inordinate delay the complainant suffered monetary loss and from mental stress and agony. The costs of the house was originally fixed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs under Annexure-1 but this was raised to Rs. 4,60,174/- and then by another Rs. 16,666/-. It is also alleged that the water supply, street light, drainage and sewerage system was wholly unsatisfactory causing great inconvenience to all the allottees. Hence, the complainant asked for compensation.

THE Board filed a written version in which they took the plea, the complaint petition being barred by limitation, not maintainable as a consumer dispute, the delay in delivery of possession was due to several bottlenecks particularly when the first project to be constructed under Hudco Finance was abandoned on account of non-availability of land and this present project was taken up with regard to construction of 238 numbers Duplex Type Houses on the other side of the Highway on a new patch of land. This subsequent land was made available by the Government to the Orissa State Housing Board on May, 1989 and, therefore, this was the reason for escalation of the costs and also for delay. It is further averred that the escalated costs of the house fixed at Rs. 4,55,111/- was communicated to the petitioner on 17.2.1993. THErefore, there was delay. Agreement was stated to be signed on 23.3.1993 and he took physical possession of the house bearing No. 48 H.I.G. Duplex on 14.6.1993 in good condition. Perused the documents on record. Heard the Counsel for both sides.

So far as the point of limitation is concerned, we do not find the case of the complainant to be barred by limitation since correspondences on record would indicate that the disputes raised in this case were repeatedly taken up with the Board from time -to -time. It is needless to go through the various correspondences. However, Annexure-B filed from the side of the Board is the document to show that the complainant took delivery of possession of the house on 14.6.1993 and it is the Boards case that she took possession of the house in complete shape with all fitting, etc. Mr. Nayak wanted to point out that by this document it is amply proved that the complainant took delivery of the house without any defect.

THIS document would not estop the complainant to bring out to the notice of the Board the defects which the complainant found only after taking possession. It would be too much to expect the complainant to note the defects without entering into possession. That too the delivery of the house was delayed by about 4 years from the scheduled date of delivery. This document proves that complainant took possession on 14.6.1993 when the amended provisions of the C.P. Act had not been enforced. The case having been filed on 6.9.1996 could be said to be barred by limitation by 3 months. But in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the prolonged correspondences between the complainant under Annexure-9 the letter dated 12.9.1995 through the Dharamvihar Community Welfare Association it could be said that correspondences were going on between the parties and, therefore, there was a continuing cause of action. Assuming it is barred by limitation, by three months, we consider that the delay was for sufficient cause and we condone the delay.

SO far as the claim of the complainant about escalation of the costs of the house in question we are not to adjudicate on this. In the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be said that the escalation was arbitrary because it involved the question of transfer of the land by the Government to the Board as well as changing over to another project. So far as the complainants case that he took possession in the year 1993 is concerned this fact has been proved. The delay in delivery of the possession of the house is rather established. Mr. Nayak submitted giving various explanation for delay but fact remains complainant having deposited the amount towards the costs of the house at different times is entitled to the interest on the deposited amount which we calculate at the rate of 10 per cent from the respective date of deposit till filing of the case on 6.9.1996. Mr. Nayak submitted that this complainant at the time of taking delivery of possession gave in writing to have taken possession of defect-free house. To this we say that would not estope the complainant to point out the defects after entering into possession.

SO far the quality of the work and defects in the particular house has been pointed out by the complainant we do not find any materials from the side of the Board to indicate that the quality of the construction of the house in all respect confirmed to the specification in the brochure condition. In the complaint petition the complainant has pointed out various defects with regard to the construction of the house in every respect. However, in para-8 he specifically mentioned that he carried out repairing work by spending Rs. 50,000/-. The Board in meeting this assertion in their version at para 21, stated in a general way that the matter was for adjudication by the Civil Court. They did not counter the assertion that the complainant could have spent that much of money by way of repair works. Therefore, we consider this silence on the part of the Board to be an admission by non-traverse both in respect of the house as well as the amounts spent is to remove the defects. In the absence of any documentary evidence from the side of the complainant in incurring such expenditure we reasonably assess the costs of such repair at Rs. 30,000/- as we have held in other cases of similar nature vide C.D. Case No. 39/96. The principles adopted and the proposition of law laid down in this case and other similar cases are also made applicable to the present case. The claim is allowed. The O.Ps. are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 30,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation. We do not propose to further award compensation for delay in delivery of the house. The order be complied within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Complaint allowed.