MANDAKINI DAS vs Orissa State Housing Board

IN this complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to deliver her a two-bed room flat in the "Toshali Apartment" and pay compensation for the inordinate delay in its delivery. So far as prayer relating to delivery of possession is concerned, we may state that it has become infructuous inasmuch as during the pendency of this complaint, the opposite parties have delivered of possession of the flat to the complainant.

BRIEFLY stated, her case is that she is a doctor and has specialized in Pathology and Bacteriology. She runs a Pathology Laboratory at Chandini Chowk, Cuttack in a rented house. The opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the Housing Board) issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of fully constructed flats in the Toshali Apartment, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the advertisement she applied for allotment of one flat. As required, she made initial deposit of Rupees 25,000 with the Housing Board which in letter No. 22947 dated 16.8.1990 intimated her that she was allotted a two-bed room flat in the "Toshali Apartment". It was indicated therein that she was required to deposit balance cost as per the schedule mentioned in it. It was also stated that the flat would be expected to be completed for handing over possession by the end of June, 1992. In view of such assurance given by the Housing Board in the aforesaid letter, she started making payments to the opposite parties as per the schedule. By letter dated 7.3.1994 the Housing Board informed her that final cost of the flat had been determined and the flat was expected to be ready by December 1994. From the said letter she noticed that there was abnormal difference between the provisional and final cost of the flat. The Housing Board asked her to deposit further amount of Rupees 3,90,558. As escalation of price was arbitrary she requested the Housing Board to indicate the basis of calculation of the cost of the flat. She had already deposited total sum of Rupees 2.50 lakh. She was informed that a final cost of the flat would be Rupees 5.15 lakh. As there was delay in handing over possession she was put to great inconvenience as she was expecting to start her practice in Bhubneswar by staying in the flat. This Commission by interim order dated 18.9.1997 permitted the complainant to deposit balance amount of Rupees 2.65 lakh towards the final cost of the flat. In obedience to the said order she deposited the said amount with this Commission which is lying in FDR. On 9.10.1998 the complainant informed this Commission that she had taken delivery of the flat and requested this Commission for early hearing of the case.

This case was heard by us along with C.D. Case No. 116 of 1995, Ashok Mukherjee & Anr. v. Orissa State Housing Board. By order passed today we have allowed that complaint and awarded compensation and cost against the Housing Board. Facts of that case are similar to the facts of the case at hand. For the delay in delivering possession of the flat the complainant had to undergo mental agony which was swelled due to unexpected and unilateral escalation of price. Had she been given possession within a reasonable time, she would have started her practice by establishing medical laboratory in the flat. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if the complainant is compensated with a sum of Rupees 20,000. We order accordingly. The Housing Board is hereby directed to pay to the complainant the above sum Rupees 20,000 by 31.10.2006 failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable on Rupees 20,000 from the date of filing of this complaint. (1.11.1995).

THE complaint is allowed with costs assessed at rupees 3,000. THE Housing Board is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the complainant which is lying in deposit with this Commission. Complaint allowed.