RENUBALA MOHANTY vs Orissa State Housing Board

DEFICIENCY in rendering the service of providing residential accommodation is grievance of the complainant.

OPPOSITE party took up a Self Financing Housing Scheme at Barasunda, Bhubaneswar to meet a long felt need at Bhubaneswar for construction of residential houses of Higher Income Group people who can afford to pay the full cost of houses during the construction period. A brochure to that effect was published by OPPOSITE party where it was stated that costs of Duplex-A type category houses over an area of 3,000 square feet land with ground floor construction of 1157.8 square feet and 1st floor construction of 438.7 square feet would cost of Rs. 2,20,000/- which would include cost of land and development cost of infrastructure. Complainant who is an employee in Utkal Machineries, Kanabahal, desirous of owning a house at Bhubaneswar, filed an application in June, 1986 for such house along with an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as required by OPPOSITE Party. When complainant could not get any information about the result of her application, she sent reminder on 20th January, 1987 and 29th June, 1987. In the second reminder she stated that she came to know from reliable source that allotment has been done and her name in the first position in the waiting list has come down. She and her husband personally met or made communications to various officers of the Housing Board at different times. On 30th January, 1988 she came to learn from private sources that her application was in second position in the waiting list and 2 more houses are going to be constructed as decided by the Board with anxiety to have a roof for her. On 22.8,1988 she filed another application with deposit of Rs. 20,000/- for allotment of a house to be constructed in Jagmura Complex. That day how- ever, her application offering for a house in Baramunda Complex under Self financing scheme was accepted by intimating that a house in M.I.G. Duplex-A type for which she applied, has been allotted to her provisionally. Condition of payment, amongst others was mentioned in the letter of allotment. On receipt of the letter of allotment, on 29.8.88 she requested to cancel the application for Jagmura allotment of house in Complex and to divert the amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited along with that application, towards the first instalment payment of Baramunda house allotted. On 27.9.88 the ''A'' type Duplex house bearing No. A-43 was finally allotted in her favour. On 4.12.89 she was intimated that there is default in payment in the 3rd instalment which she was called upon to pay by 31st December, 1989. Since 2237 square feet land adjoining to her plot was to be transferred in her favour, she was called upon to deposit Rs. 16,555/- more on that account. Complainant addressed a letteronl 3.12.89 stating that information relating to default is not correct since she had paid the same. She had apprehension that the fittings, windows and doors etc. would be destroyed in case possession of the house is not given to her early. When she did not get possession, she made some correspondences and thereafter addressed a letter to this Commissioner on 17.4.1991 requesting intervention of the President. On 30.4.91 she sent another letter to the Commissioner which was received on 4.5.91 on basis of which this Dispute case was registered. After preparing copies notice was sent to OPPOSITE Party on 21.6.1991 by registered post with postal acknowledgement when such postal acknowledgements were not received back even after 30 days of despatch, notices were accepted to be sufficient. On 5.9.1991 opposite parties intimated complainant that she is to pay Rs. 14.630/- towards the development cost of the additional area of 1937 square feet which is adjacent to her house No. A-43. Complainant made a grievance of the same on 12.9.1991. She was reminded of the same on 14.10.1991 and was requested to take over possession on deposit of the same. On her depositing the amount on 18.11.1991, letter authorising to take possession on 20.12.1991 was issued on 2.12.1991 and she has taken possession of the house in month of March, 1991.

Opposite Party stated its case indicating the same is shape of memorandum that on 4.12.89 complainant was called upon to pay Rs. 60,555/- as costs of the land (@Rs. 3.21 lakhs per acre) in view of the larger area given her. This amount was deposited on 11.4.90, after which the sale deed for the extra land was executed. At that stage grievance was made before the State Public Undertaking Committee relating to allotment bigger size plots. Thereafter, Chairman of Opposite parties passed an order that the extra land would be charged at Rs. 6.50 lakhs per acre. On that basis, complainant was intimated to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 14,630/- and was reminded on 14.10.1991 to deposit the amount and take over physical possession. On 18.11.91 this amount was deposited, where after possession letter was issued on 2.12.1991 to take possession on 20th December, 1991. On 17.3.1991, Assistant Engineer sent a note that possession had already been delivered to her.

FOR the aforesaid narration of facts it is seen that delay in delivery of possession, extra costs and charge of interest are the grievances of the complainant. FOR considering if there is deficiency in service, each of the points require careful consideration. Delay in delivery of possession It is not disputed that while advertising the scheme it was indicated that the period of construction would be 2 years. Scheme is that the construction is intended to be financed by the allottee. These two years in respect of a house should therefore, be from the date of allotment of a house to an applicant and receipt of first instalment and not from the date of advertisement or date of application. In this case, provisional allotment was on 22.8.1988. Therefore, normally the construction as per the time fixed should be near about 22.8.1990. Land was transferred by registration on 12.4.1990. Complainant does not dispute that house had been constructed by 15.1.1990. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was delay in construction. Possession could have been delivered on 12.4.1990. Such possession was, however, delayed by about two years since it was delivered in the month of March, 1992. This delay is explained by opposite parties to be on account of objection before the State Public Undertaking Committee in respect of excess area than the area of 3,000 square feet. In case complainant would have intimated that she is willing to confine her land area to 3000 square feet and not more, possibly there would have been no explanation for the Opposite Parties. .Opposite Parties ought to have intimated the complainant that in case she would like to take possession of the house allotted to her with excess area, she shall have to wait till the objection before the Public Undertaking Committee is finalised. We cannot appreciate silence of the opposite parties. Having received huge amounts from allottees, they ought not to have behaved to be in a superior position expecting allottees to approach them time and again. Officers of Opposite Party No. 1 should change their attitude in behaviour with on allottee for whom they exist and are paid for. Equally, complainant ought not to have approached the officers times without number when forums are available for redressal. These uncalled for approaches to get preference than others create a situation for favourtism, corruption and arbitrariness. If persons, highly educated and well placed in life, in anxiety to get matters expedited, approach officers, the ill effect of the same would be reflected on persons who are not able to approach and the system itself would be soiled. So that as it may, delay was on account of objection before, Public Undertaking Committee and it was a force majeure in the circumstances of the case. No sooner Chairman decided that the price would be 6.50 lakhs, action was taken. Complainant getting excess area stands in better position than other allottees who have not be able to get excess area which caused the delay and accordingly, we are not able to attribute deficiency in service on account of delay in delivery of possession.

EXTRA cost: EXTRA cost for land is not unjustified when Government rate was 6.5 lakh rupees, there was no justification for the Opposite Party to charge at rate of 3.21 lakhs rupees. There is no doubt some extra cost for construction. The same how- ever, is not so abnormal to be said to be arbitrary. In a house under the self financing schemes, the finance required for construction is to be borne by the allottee. If the Opposite Parties would have been the seller of the house with land registration charges would have been much more. Getting advantage of registration charges, an allottee should not be permitted to say that the cost of construction has increased. In any case, if there is breach of agency, the same can be agitated in usual forum and not being a deficiency in service, redressal agency is not to entertain it unless the same is ancillary for considering other deficiencies having effect on use of the service hired. Interest: Complainant has a legitimate grievance in respect of collection of interest on account of depravities of hard earned money temporarily without any benefit. Payment of interest on account of default in payment of instalment is a term of agreement. This cannot; be agrievance when there is admittedly some default, be it a day or months. Advance payment of subsequent instalments would not be a ground to avoid paying interest. However, on account of delay in delivery of possession, complainant not having been able to enjoy fruits of her investment, even when she has completed her part of the agreement, she is entitled to compensation. Since complainant is serving outside Bhubaneswar and does not claim that her dependents and family members would have used the house for which she or they suffered inconvenience or had to pay more at Bhubaneswar. There- fore, we are inclined to direct payment of compensation equal to the interest collected from her. Interest collected is found to be Rs. 7,512/-. Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 7,512/- to complainant as compensation within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% annually till the date of payment. Complainant, in course of hearing alleged defects in the house and inconvenience in enjoyment of the same. She is given liberty to make her grievance independently in a separate complaint in appropriate forum if so advised.

CLAIM for compensation on account of frequent journey to Bhubaneswar and loss of emoluments on that account is not entertainable since opposite parties never invited her and she had come for her own satisfaction.

COMPLAINT is allowed to the extent indicated in para 8 and is ordered accordingly. COMPLAINT allowed as indicated.