SATYANDRA KUMAR SINGH vs Bihar State Housing Board

THESE two appeals arise from an order passed by Bihar State Commission, in a complaint filed by Shri Satyandra Kumar Singh (appellant in FA No. 208/1996) against the respondent Bihar State Housing Board (appellant in FA No. 579/1996), alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bihar State Housing Board.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant Shri Satyandra Kumar Singh was allotted a flat, in response to an advertisement floated by the Bihar Slate Housing Board, for which on different dates between 1.9.1987 and 1.9.1988, an amount of Rs. 1,20,000 was deposited along with Rs. 15,000 deposited as earnest money by the complainant with the Housing Board. As per the advertisement the project was to be completed within a period of 2 years but this time limit was not adhered to by the Housing Board. Finally a hire-purchase agreement was entered into only in early 1992, yet possession was not given as housing had several defects. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bihar State Housing Board, a complaint was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties at length and perusal of material on record, dealt with three points, namely, firstly, the issue relating to price escalation of flat from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 2,81,143 secondly, relating to the ''defects'' in the flat and thirdly loss caused to the complainant on account of not giving the delivery of the flat on time. The State Commission allowed the complaint only to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% for the deposited amount, i.e., Rs. 1,20,000 from 25.8.1992 till the possession of the flat is delivered, along with compensation of Rs. 10,000. The State Commission, did not deal with the question of price escalation as according to them settled law does not permit the Consumer Forums from going into the question of price escalation. As far as the defects in the flat are concerned, since hire-purchase agreement envisaged the deliveryof possession on "as-is-where-is" basis, there is no question of any defect, hence these two prayers were not allowed. Aggrieved by this order, both the parties have filed two separate appeals before us. We heard the complainant, who was present in person as also to the learned Counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board. Basic facts are undisputed, namely, that in response to an advertisement floated by Bihar State Housing Board in Times of India dated 25.1.1987, the complainant applied with an advance deposit of Rs. 15,000. According to this advertisement, the flat was to be completed within 2 years. On different dates upto September, 1988, the complainant had paid Rs. 1,20,000 yet the possession was not given within stipulated period. The Hire-Purchase-Agreement was entered between the parties only in early 1992. We are unable to sustain the plea of the Bihar State Housing Board that on account of problem with the contract / builders, there was delay. Be that as it may, as per admitted position, the complainant had paid Rs. 1,20,000 but as per Hire-Purchase-Agreement, complainant has been shown to have made an initial payment of Rs. 1,74,170, which as per the statement of the learned Counsel for the Housing Board, is on account of interest @15% having accrued/paid on Rs. 1,20,000, deposited by the complainant, admittedly paid by the complainant to the Housing Board.

It is the case of the Board that as per the terms of the agreement, the instalments were not paid and as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, they are entitled to charge interest. It was pleaded by the complainant that he is willing to pay the accrued amount of Rs. 2,81,143 but he should not be asked to pay any interest on this amount, as he is not at fault for delayed delivery of the flat to him.

AFTER hearing the parties, we have been shown a letter dated 18.12.2004, issued by the Housing Board to the complainant in which the total outstanding amount against him has been shown to Rs. l,82,334.60 ps. It is important to note that the Agreement was entered between parties in early 1992 in which the price of the flat has been shown as Rs. 2,81,143 and Rs. 1,74,170 is admitted to have been received from the complainant to the Housing Board. The remainder amount was to be paid in 84 Equated Monthly Instalments @ Rs. 2,170.65 ps. per month. If we make a simple calculation these 84 months (7 year period) expires sometime in 1999. The demand notice of Rs. 1,82,334.60 ps., (shown as an arrear) is issued by the Housing Board to the complainant on 18.12.2004. It will be our presumption that since the total time stipulated in the Agreement expired in 1999 and the notice has been issued on 18.12.2004, it shows all the outstanding amounts due from the complainant. In our view the Housing Board shall not be entitled to anything more than the demanded amount, which is almost 5 years after the expiry of the stipulated period within which EMI were to be paid. Admittedly, there has been delay on the part of the Housing Board in offering the possession of the flat which has been done only in November 2004 on the orders of this Commission. The complainant appearing in person, was candid enough to state that he did not go into question of pricing and has wrongly been gone into by the State Commission. It is also admitted position that the flat was allotted on "as-is-where-is" basis as defects, if any, were not to be considered but based on material supplied by the Housing Board certain defects have been repaired/ removed upon directions given by this Commission. We are not inclined to go into the question on account of the basis as rightly held by the State Commission that the flat was to be offered on "as-is-where-is basis." We do not wish to open the Pandora''s Box of granting further interest beyond 1992 on the amount already received by the Housing Board as we see that there have been deficiencies writ large on the part of the appellants before us. While there is a delay in delivery of the flat there has also been delay, for that matter, refusal to pay any instalment after making initial payment, by the complainant.

IN view of above discussion, and in order to bring the dispute to an amicable end, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside. The Housing Board will be entitled to the amount mentioned in the demand notice dated 18.12.2004, which the complainant is directed to pay within 6 weeks from the passing of this order. Since no further demand notice has been issued by the Housing Board, they will not be entitled to anything else. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms. Appeals disposed of.