MADHYA PRADESH Housing Board vs ALOK MITTAL

-PETITIONER, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a flat on 27. 7. 1999 under ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement. As per the allotment letter, the petitioner was to deposit Rs. 2,17,144 before occupying the house and the balance amount of Rs. 6,37,500 was payable in equated instalments with interest mentioned therein. There is no dispute that the requisite demanded amount, entitling the complainant for getting the possession was deposited on 22. 10. 1999, whereas the possession was given only on 31. 1. 2000. It was the case of the complainant that there was defects in the house and it was made liveable only on 22. 4. 2000, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to interest for the period from the date of depositing amount upto the period when the house was made liveable. It was in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the interest for the period from 22. 10. 1999 to 31. 1. 2000, i. e. the date on which the possession was taken. Aggrieved by this order, an Appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was dismissed hence this revision petition.

We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Para Nos. 1 and 2 of the allotment letter dated 27. 7. 1999 envisaged two steps before getting the possession firstly, to deposit amount of Rs. 2,17,144 and secondly, execution of ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement. In this case, there is no dispute that the requisite amount was deposited on 22. 10. 1999. But it is also admitted position that the ''hire-Purchase'' agreement was executed only on 31. 1. 2000 for no fault of the petitioner. The District Forum has arrived at the conclusion, which it did, based on the premise that having made the payment on a certain date, the ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement would deemed to have been done, does not stand our scrutiny. They are two separate actions. One with regard to the payment, the other was to enter into the ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement. If the complainant has taken that much time to sign the ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement, complainant will not be entitled for any relief, for the simple reason, that as per allotment letter it was incumbent upon the respondent/complainant to approach the petitioner Housing Board for execution of ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement, which he did after considerable time and admittedly, the period between signing the ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement and giving the possession is minimal. In fact, the ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement was signed on 28. 1. 2000 and possession was given on 30. 1. 2000.

IN the above circumstances, we see that if anyone is deficient, it is the complainant who committed delay in signing the ''hire-Purchase'' Agreement within stipulated time after having made the payment. In view of this, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, which is set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R. P. allowed.