Somasundara vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

THE unsuccessful complainant in Complaint No. 17 of 1991 on the file of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore is the appellant in this appeal. THE respondent in the appeal (opposite party before the State Commission) is the Chair- man of the Mysore Urban Development Authority.

IN response to a Notification dated 8.4.87 published by the respondent, the complainant made an application for the allotment of a A-l type house on a site measuring 40'' X 60'', the cost of which had been notified as amounting approximately to Rs. 2,90,000/-. The complain- ant made an initial payment of a sum of Rs. 72,500/- along with his application dated 20.7.1987. On 3.8.1987 the respondent herein the Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MUDA")-allotted to the complainant House No. 15 on site No. 55 in Vijayanagar Layout, Mysore. Under the terms of the allotment letter the balance amount pay- able towards the cost of the house was to be remitted by the complainant in three further instalments of Rs. 72,500/- Under Clause 2 of the Notification dated 8.4.1987 (Exhibit C-I), it had been stated that the construction of the houses would be completed within about two years from the date of allotment and arrangements would then be made for handing over possession of the houses. The grievance put forward by the complainant be- fore the State Commission was that though three instalments amounting in all Rs. 2,17,500/- had been paid by him to the respondent by 1.6.1989, the respondent failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period of two years from the date of allotment and as a consequence of such delay, the complainant was put to the necessity of shifting his residence from his original house wherein he was residing on rent and had to take up another house paying higher rent and he had also incurred loss by way of interest on the money invested by him besides the inconvenience suffered by him by occupying the similar accommodation. On all these grounds he sought to recover from the respondent a total compensation of Rs. 1,22,725/-.

The Opposite Party contended before the State Commission by way of defence that the period of two years mentioned in the Notification as the time within which the houses were expected to be completed was only an approximate period of time and there had been no stipulation of any definite time limit of completing the construction of the houses. It was further contended that the delay in completion of the construction was caused by reasons beyond the control of the respondent because of certain . factors such as the non-availability of building materials, failure on the part of the Karnataka State Electricity Board to supply electricity for carrying on the construction work and also de- lay in giving electric connection and water sup- ply connection by the respective authorities in charge of supply of electricity and water. The State Commission rejected the case put forward by the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of MUDA and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal by the complain- ant.

WE have carefully gone through the evidence produced in the case. There is nothing at all in the materials produced by the complain- ant to show that the delay in completion of the construction of the houses was due to any negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. On the other hand, we are in complete agreement with the finding entered by the State Commission that the construction work got considerably hampered only due to factors beyond the control of the respondent herein, namely, the non-availability of building materials and non-supply of electricity by the Karnataka State Electricity Board. The State Commission has extracted in its order an English translation of the full text of the Clause (2) of the Notification (Exhibit C-l) which is the relevant clause mentioning the time of completion and handing over of possession of the houses. On a period of two years stipulated therein was only an approximate specification of time limit and it was not a definite and specific commitment that the construction would be completed within two years from the date of allotment. We agree with the said interpretation that the State Commission has placed on Clause (2) of the Notification.

THE State Commission has observed in its order that the respondent delivered the possession of the house to the complainant on 29.9.1991. This fact is fully borne out by the record. But even by that date, electric connection and water supply had not been provided to the house by the authorities in charge of giving those facilities and it was only by April-May, 1992 that water supply and electric connection were provided to the house. THE responsibility for the dealy in regard to this matter rests only with the authorities in charge of giving the electric connection and water supply connection and no lapse or remissness on the part of the MUDA had been made out by the complainant. In most of the Housing cases that have come up before us, the complaint of the consumers has generally been that the final cost of the building demanded from the allottee on its completion far exceeded the cost that was mentioned in the Notification calling for applications for allotment. In the present case, it is a redeeming feature that the final cost of the building as worked out after its completion was less than the figure mentioned in the original Notification by inasmuch as Rs. 15,000/- and in place of Rs. 72,500/- which had been stipulated as the fourth instalment payable by the complainant, only Rs. 57,500/- was demanded from him by the respondent herein as the final instalment and it was this amount only which the complainant paid on 13.9.1991. On a consideration of the entire evidence adduced in the case, we are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the State Commission that no negligence or deficiency in service has been made out as against the Opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to seek any relief as against the respondent.

THE order of the State Commission is accordingly confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.