ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD vs D.SATYANARAYAN RAO

OPPOSITE party is the appellant against direction given by the District Forum.

COMPLAINANT was allotted a MIG-11-R/ 2 house on 23.4.93 for which he deposited initial cost of Rs. 8650/- with the appellant by 31.10.98. Two years after appellant intimated complainant that cost of house allotted is fixed at Rs. 70,288/- in place of provisional price fixed at Rs. 31,650/-. Although the information was bolt from blue,complainant inspected the house to find that constructions is not complete and amenities had not begun to be provided. COMPLAINANT made grievance to opposite party to no effect. Hence complaint was filed. Opposite party stated that price index, cost of labour and material increased during 1988 and 1989 for which cost of the house had to be increased. Reason for escalation had been indicated in the 160th meeting of the Board. It is stated that construction work dragged on for three years for reasons beyond control of the opposite party on account of change and modification of design of the foundation besides shortage of materials and labour problem in the locality.

District Forum directed opposite party to pay Rs. 500/- as costs and interest at the ate of 12% per annum from 1.11.1988 to 31.12.1990 on the deposit of Rs. 8,350/- which is grievance of appellant.

IN respect of the self same project this commission had given a direction on 5.10.1991 in four complaints that interest at the rate of 10% was to be paid on amount deposited which is to be adjusted and revise demand is to be issued. As regards defective construction we directed that a team of engineers should be appointed who would inspect in line indicated in the order. See 1992 (2) CPR 540 (Biswaranjan Das and 3 Others in the order, v. Orissa State Housing Board). It is true that no clear finding of negligence of opposite party and suffering of complainant was given in the said decision. But delay in construction was entirely because of deficiency on the house board was found. IN the said decision the same cause had been indicated to explain a day and rise in cost. If contractor was partly responsible for delay, Housing Board apart from rescinding the contract could have filed complaint against the contractor in a redressal agency under the Consumer Protection Act to get compensation. By protecting the contractor, the escalation ought not to have been distributed to the applicants for the houses. If change of plan was on account of absence of proper investigation, the employees responsible for such improper investigation ought to have been called upon to pay for their negligence. Protecting negligent employees and contractors is negligence of the Housing Board. It clear explanation has not been given in respect of the same. Accordingly, decision of the Board to escalation of a statutory body amounts to negligence. Similarly a low paid employee deprived of Rs. 8350/- for year together without any benefit is a financial suffering. IN absence of other sufferings being stated by complainant, loss of interest was the suffering and compensation at that rate has been awarded. Since in some of the cases we have directed payment of interest at 10% per annum, the rate of interest in this case is reduced to 10%. In a complaint no cost is involved to complainant. Accordingly, in absence of clear material relating to expenses incurred by complainant, we set aside the cost.

IN result, appeal is allowed in part. Rate of interest is reduced to 10% and direction to pay cost is set aside. Appeal partly allowed.