M. RAMANUJAM vs Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board

IN this order the above titled 16 appeals are dealt with. Out of the said 16 appeals 3 appeals were filed against a common order passed in 4 O.Ps. namely O.P. 73/95, 76/95, 79/95 & 82/95. 3 out of 4 complainants whose O.Ps. have been dismissed have filed A.P. Nos. 1019, 1020, & 1021/96. Remaining 13 appeals have been filed out of another common order passed in 13 O.Ps. namely O.P. Nos. 131/95 to 137/95 and 147/95,148/95, 156/95, 186/95, 203/95 & 204/95. Hereto the appellants are the complainants whose O.Ps have been dismissed.

DURING the course of the arguments before us it was stated by both sides that out of the 16 appeals, in 15 appeals exactly common questions arise and in one appeal i.e., A.P. 1019/ 95 filed against an order in O.P. No. 73/95, there is little difference in that whereas in the said 15 appeals one of the prayers was for execution of the Sale Deed by the opposite party, in the said one appeal the Sale Deed has already been executed. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings in the complaints and the written versions Held that in all the matters the complainants have questioned the price fixed for the building and the land, and they cannot do because such a question cannot be decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On this finding the District Forum Held that there is no merit in all the complaints and, therefore, it dismissed them.

It appears in 15 of the O.Ps. the main grievance of the complainants is that the opposite parties have not executed the Sale Deed for a long time now and, therefore, they are deficient in service. As against this the case of the opposite parties is that the complainants have not paid the full cost price fixed for the plots and without such payment they cannot ask for execution of the Sale Deeds. In this context the contention of the complainants is that the opposite parties are demanding more costs than they are entitled to recover from the complainants and, therefore, there is no merit in their contention that the complainants failed to pay the full costs of the plots. As stated above the District Forum has Held that the price fixed by the opposite parties cannot be questioned in the proceedings before the Consumer Forums. During the arguments before us the learned Authorised Agent of the Appellants stated that he is not questioning the price fixed for the building and he is also not questioning the development charges claimed by the opposite party, but he is questioning the cost fixed for the land. According to him the agreement between the complainants and the opposite parties gives right to the complainants to question the opposite party as regards the value fixed for the lands. But on a careful consideration for the lands. But on a careful consideration of the records before us we are not able to agree with this submission. It appears that after the flats were allotted, land acquisition cases were pending before the Land Acquisition Tribunals and the Tribunals have awarded to the land owners more value than the value fixed by the opposite parties and they have also awarded 15% interest payable by the opposite party to the land owners on the enhanced value fixed. Because of this development the opposite parties had to increase the land value and further even though in the Ex. A35 allotment order it is stated to the effect that for me balance amount, after the payment of the initial deposit which should be paid in instalments the interest will be charged @ 11.5% and 12% in view of the interest allowed @ 15% by the Court to be paid to the land owners by the opposite parties, the opposite parties have raised interest to the enhanced land cost 17%. What is more important is that when questioned by us whether a specific plea has been taken, regarding the land costs fixed, in the complaint, the learned Agent was not able to point out any such plea in the complaints. That being the case, it is not open to him in the appeal to contend that the land cost fixed was not proper and excessive. We do not also find that any plea has been taken in the complaint that interest charged is high and it was against the agreement. Thus we find no merit in the appeals.

THEREFORE, the result is: the appeals are all dismissed. However, mere will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.