K. Karuppiah vs TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated the 22nd day of September, 1998 in O.P. No. 86/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the opposite party. The complainant was allotted a house bearing No. L-75 at Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Rajapalayam by the opposite party. The complainant was stated to have paid the monthly instalments due for the said allotment from 1982 onwards till up to March, 1995 for the period of 13 years. He has also remitted a sum of Rs. 1,560/- the difference in cost of the plot of land on 19.1.1995 as demanded by the opposite party. After the payment of the said cost he sent a letter to the opposite party demanding the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was however not executed by the opposite party. Consequently the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum on 24.6.1997 claiming deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and praying for the reliefs as below : (1) Payment of compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-; (2) For the hardship and mental agony quantified in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-; (3) Rs. 1,000/- for transport expenses; all totalling to Rs. 16,000/-.

The opposite party filed objections in pith and substance contending that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and consequently he is not entitled to any reliefs he has prayed for. The opposite party would however admit the receipt of letters from the complainant for the execution of the sale deed but before ever the sale deed was executed, the complainant rushed to the District Forum in launching a complaint against him. The opposite party would further allege that the payment particulars have to be verified from the year 1981 and such verification consumed a lot of time and consequently there was delay on the part of the opposite party in the execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that there was no wanton negligence or deficiency in service on their part and the delay is purely bona fide and the delay had occurred in the process of verification of payment particulars from the year 1981.

THE District Forum however dismissed the complaint without costs, giving rise to the present action by the complainant. The complainant engaged a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. N. Shriram. The said learned Counsel is not present in Court. The complainant is also not present in Court to project his hues of views. The fact that the said complainant and his Counsel were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits of course after hearing the learned Counsel for the opposite party namely Mr. K. Ganesan and on perusal of the records. That is exactly what we have done in this case.

EVEN at the outset we want to point out that the Forum below did not at all apply its mind to the factual matrix of the case. The District Forum understood this case as if there is a dispute between the parties as to the price fixation of the house allotted. That sort of a case is nobody''s case. We are puzzled to read from the order that such sort of a case had been projected by the District Forum. That perhaps the reason for the grievous error committed by the District Forum in the sense of dismissing the complaint without affording any relief to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that notwithstanding the fact that he had been regularly effecting monthly instalments for well over a period of 13 years right from 1982 onwards till upto March, 1995 to the opposite party and also paid the increased land cost quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,560/- as demanded by the opposite party and applied for the execution of the sale deed, the opposite party was however reluctant in not taking any steps for the reason known to themselves for the execution of the sale deed in his favour and such sort of an act on the part of the opposite party, he would contend is deficiency in service entitling him to claim compensation for mental agony, hardship and what not. It is not as if the opposite party repelled the case as put forward by the complainant. The opposite party would very well in the objections filed admit that there was delay on their part in the execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant and the delay was stated to have occurred for verification of payment particulars for a period of 13 years. They would not at all demur in the objections so filed that they were unable to execute the sale deed as the consequence of belated payment of instalments or any other charges due from the complainant. The communication emanated from the opposite party dated 23.12.1994 marked as Ex. P9 itself indicates that the complainant was asked to pay the dues in excess of the land price quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,560/- before 31.1.1995 and applied for execution of the sale deed. The last portion of the said letter reads as follows : "If you are interested to obtain sale deed you may pay the balance cost and apply for sale deed." Pursuant to the letter so issued, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant paid the said difference in cost of the plot on 19.1.1995 as evidenced from the receipt marked as Ex. P8. Despite the payment so effected the recalcitrant opposite party had the guts and ternerity not to execute the sale deed and made the complainant to approach the District Forum for redressal of his grievances. This is definitely a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party entitling the complainant to claim damages for mental agony and anguish and we fix the claim of compensation for such mental agony and anguish in a reasonable sum of Rs. 1,000/- and same is directed to be paid within a month from the date of receipt of this order.

WE have not made any order issuing a direction to the opposite party to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. That sort of a relief cannot at all be granted by this Forum. WE are quite aware of the same. But at the same time so far as the case on hand is concerned we are of the view that since the opposite party kept quite unduly long without replying to the complainant, that sort of an act or attitude on the part of the opposite party, we rather feel, is definitely deficiency in service coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

FOR the reasons as above the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated as above, and the complaint in other respects shall stand dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.