S P DHAVASKAR vs HOUSING COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

IN this complaint, the complainant has sought the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,66,000/ - deposited by him for allotment of a MIG house and interest thereon towards compensation and also compensation for mental agony. The opposite party is the Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore. 1. It is the case of the complainant, that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the opposite party for allotment of houses under HUDCO scheme, the complainant applied for allotment of a house by depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - on 10.4.1987. The opposite party allotted a house bearing No. MIG -42 at Yelahanka, in favour of the complainant on 20.2.1990. The complainant, as per the instructions, under letter of allotment deposited Rs. 80,000/ -under 4 instalments of Rs. 20,000/ - each on 19.4.1990, 17.5.90,20.6.1990 and 21.7.1990. The complainant also made further payment of Rs. 81,000/ - on 25.9.1990 - in all he paid a sum of Rs. 1,66,000/ -.

THE complainant further averred that as per advertisement of the opposite party, the construction of the house was to be completed within 2 years from 3.3.1987, but the opposite party did not deliver the possession of the allotted house within that period even on repeated demands but he received an intimation on 21.3.1992 stating that the construction of the house was not upto the expected level because of the use of low cost technology and so they have developed distress may not last long and so were unable to handover the possession of the house allotted to the complainant. The opposite party further intimated the complainant either to take refund of the amounts already deposited by the complainant without interest or opt for an allotment of a new house (ground plus two floors tenaments) in lieu of the house already allotted and agree to bear the difference in costs. The complainant, nextly averred that, the services rendered by the opposite party are clearly deficient in nature in not delivering the possession of properly constructed house.

THE complainant on the basis of these averments, sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,65,080/ - on various counts, as detailed below: "The complainant has assessed the loss caused to him by the in -action of the respondent for non -delivery of the completed house to the complainant as follows: (a) total amount paid Rs. 1,66,000/ - (b) Complainant is staying in rented house paying a rent of Rs. 600/ -for a period of 4 years from March''89 to 92 and future Rs. 28,000/ - (c) Loan amount obtained with an interest of 14% p.a. till complaint and till realization Rs. 34,440/ - (Int.) Rs. 1,23,000/ - (d) Hand loan plus with 2% interest till the date of complaint till realization 20,640/ - (Int.)43,000/ - (Hand Loan) (e) Mental agony and damages 50,000/ - Total loss Rs. 4,65,080/ -

THE opposite party filed its statement of objections; admitted the fact of allotment of house bearing No. MIG -42 at Yelahanka, in favour of the complainant. It also admitted the receipt of the various sums deposited by the complainant as averred by him. The opposite party nextly averred that as it was found that the construction of the houses were not upto the mark and so in the interest of the allottee the Board decided not to allot the house but to give alternative house. It was further averred that the complainant has been requested either to opt for the allotment of a new house (ground plus two floors tenament) in lieu of the house already allotted agreeing to pay the difference in costs or accept the refund of the amount already deposited by him without interest.

DURING enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit and also got Ex.C -1 to C -11 marked. The Opposite Party filed the affidavit of Sri. S.G. Hegde, Secretary, Karnataka Housing Board.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the records. The points that arise for our consideration are - (I) whether the services rendered by the opposite party were in any way deficient in nature? (II) if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

REGARDING point No. I: It is not disputed that the opposite party did issue a publication calling for applications for allotment of houses under HUDCO scheme in Yelahanka.

IT is also not disputed that the complainant applied for such a house under the said HUDCO scheme; house No. MIG -42 was allotted in his favour and thereafter the complainant deposited the sums amounting to Rs. 1,66,000/ - on various dates commencing from 10.4.87. It is also not disputed that the opposite party did not deliver the possession of the house in question within the time stipulated under the above publication, in favour of the complainant.

THE opposite party has given reason for not delivering the possession of the house to the complainant that the construction of the house was not upto the mark, it had developed distress and would not have lasted long and in the interest of the allottee, the possession of the said house was not given to the allottee. The opposite party has given options to the allottees by its notice on 2.3.1992, stating that either the complainant has to accept the refund of the money deposited by him without interest or accept the allotment of a flat and make the payment of difference in costs.

THE opposite party collected huge sums of money from the complainant and after lapse of some period nearly two years to say that the construction was not upto the mark and take refund of the money deposited by the complainant without interest is clearly unreasonable and it is -a clear case of deficiency in service. There is gross negligence on the part of the opposite party. So we hold and answer point No. I in favour of the complainant. Regarding Point No. II: The complainant invested huge sums of money with a hope to get a ready built house. But after a lapse of a period of nearly two years, he was informed by the opposite party that the construction of the house was not upto the mark and he were to take either refund of the money deposited by him without interest or to opt for a flat. This stand taken by the opposite party is Clearly, in our view, unreasonable and this is a clear case of negligence on the part of the opposite party.

THE complainant invested huge sums of money by making deposit of the sums on different dates as detailed above. The complainant has claimed, having raised loans at 14% p.a. and at 24% p.a. which he has failed to substantiate. In our opinion, we need not go into this aspect of the matter whether the complainant has raised loans and deposited but the fact remains that due to the negligence of the opposite party the complainant did suffer loss and injury by investing huge sums of money with the opposite party. So the complainant has to be necessarily compensated for the same. In our opinion, we deem it proper to award interest on the sums deposited by the complainant at 18% p.a. to recompensate the damage and loss suffered by him. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,66,000/ - with interest at 18% p.a. as under: Rs. From 5,000.00 10.4.1987 20,000.00 19.4.1990 20,000.00 17.5.1990 20,000.00 20.6.1990 20,000.00 21.7.1990 and 81,000.00 25.9.1990 upto the date of payment. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - towards costs of these proceedings. The opposite party is directed to make the payment of sums so awarded within a period of two months from this day. Complaint allowed with costs.