S.SRINIVASA MURTHY vs Karnataka Housing Board

THIS is a complaint received by this Commission claiming the following reliefs: 1. Interest on basic cost of Rs. 3,40,000/- from 9.2.1995 to 18.5.1999 3,10,675.00

REFUND of amount paid on 31.7.1995 23,840.00 Interest on 2 above for the period from 31.7.1995 to 18.5.1999 19,435.00

Refund of amount paid on 13.7.1996 11.,910.00

INTEREST on 4 above for the period from 13.7.1996 to 18.5.1999 7,255.00 Refund of amount paid on 29.4.1999 1,57,482.00

INTEREST on 6 above for the period from 29.4.1999 to 18.4.1999 1,890.00 Compensation for delay, deficiency in specification and mental tension 50,000.00 Costs of the complaint 2,000.00 II. 1. To pay overdue interest on the gross amount detailed above for the period from 18.5.1999 to actual date of payment, and also 2. To refund travel expenses and other reasonable expenses incurred by the complainant. 2. The allegations made in the complaint are that after going through an advertisement of the opposite party in Times of India dated 14.7.1993 the complainant applied for a flat in Yelahanka and the O.P. allotted one flat out of Central Government quota, the cost being fixed at Rs. 3,40,000/- by an allotment letter dated 29.11.1993. As per the advertisement the flat were to be ready for occupation by the end of 1994. The said flat as could be seen from the brochure issued by the O.P. included two bed rooms, equal number of bath rooms, a hall etc. 3. The complainant paid the instalments regularly through Corporation Bank, Mumbai. Even though the scheduled date for completion and handing over the flat was over the O.P. did not bother even to intimate the status, inspite of numerous letters. 4. The complaint further reads that the O.P. arbitrarily raised the cost from Rs. 3,40,000/- to Rs. 4,35,000/- to Rs. 4,83,000/- and demanded higher payments. Since the complainant had no option but to pay the said amount, he paid the said amount under protest. Somewhere in the month of October, 1998 O.P. sent a draft lease-cum-sale agreement showing therein Rs. 3,62,250/- as outstanding. After protracted correspondence and producing the documentary proof, it was corrected as Rs. 1,07,250/-. The said amount was also paid by the complainant. The O.P. sent a format with a fresh allotment letter dated 25.1.1999 hiking the cost further to Rs. 5,32,232/-, ignoring the payments made already, changing the reservation nature from "Central Govt." to "First cum First and demanding the balance amount of Rs. 5,23,232/- to be paid within one month. However, later they rectified their mistake and sanctioned a revised allotment letter dated 6.4.1999 incorporating the amount already paid and demanding Rs. 1,57,482/-. Having left with no option the complainant paid the balance amount on 29.4.1999, got the sale deed registered and took the possession of the flat on 19.5.1999. According to the complainant there was delay of more than 4 years and 4 months and O.P. has illegally collected a total sum of Rs. 5,33,232/- as against Rs. 3,40,000/- which was fixed at the time of allotment. The further grievance of the complainant was that the flat handed over to him was not as per the specifications mentioned in the brochure and schedule mentioned in the draft lease-cum-sale agreement. According to the brochure the flat should have two bed rooms and equal number of bath rooms. The lease-cum-sale agreement showed two bed rooms, one of which attached with toilet. According to the complainant the O.P. handed over a flat with none of the bed rooms having attached bath room. On these allegations he has filed the complaint for the relief mentioned above.

In support of the said complaint he has filed his affidavit and produced the documents. 6. On the side of the O.P. written version is filed, contending that the complainant had applied for allotment of flat in Yelahanka in pursuance of advertisement issued in Times of India dated 14.7.1993. Accordingly the O.P. allotted a flat No. 37S-HIG-A on a provisional cost of Rs. 3,40,000/- under the provisions of KHB Act, Rules and Allotment Regulations. The provisional cost notified is subject to variation and escalation during the course of execution of the work and the allottee agreed for the same and they are bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment. They have further admitted the fact that the flats will be ready for occupation by the 2nd of 1994 and the period mentioned was only tentative and approximate. The O.P. Board has taken all steps for completing the construction of the flats and the flats were constructed and completed. 7. After completing the flats the Board requested the complainant to pay the escalation charges which was paid by the complainant. The entire amount was paid by the complainant on 29.4.1999 and the lease-cum-sale agreement was registered and the complainant took possession of the flat on 19.5.1999. The O.P. contended that the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed in his complaint. It further submitted that outright sale of immovable property is not a service as held by the National Commission and also changing of the escalated price for the allotted flat cannot be gone into by a Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On all these grounds the O.P. requested this Commission to dismiss the complaint. 8. In support of the said version the Secretary of the K.H.B. has sworn to an affidavit reiterating what has been mentioned in the version. 9. We have perused the pleadings and heard the learned Advocate Mr. Venkataramaiah on behalf of the O.P. and also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant. Since the complainant did not appear before this Commission either in person or through the Advocate and having regard to the fact that escalation of price cannot be gone into by this Commission as held by the National Commission, we are not in a position to grant any relief pertaining to the said request. Since the amount has been fixed as provisional at the time of issuing advertisement and subsequently cost has been raised on account of the escalation and the said amount has been paid by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get interest on the said amount as claimed in the complaint.

THE complainant has contended in his complaint and in his affidavit and his written arguments that the O.P. has handed over the flat not as per the specification but with one bath room less. This fact has not been disputed by the O.P. But however, O.P. contended that it has been changed as per the advise of Expert Body. THE learned Advocate Mr. Venkataramaiah submitted that insofar as violating the specification is concerned, the Board being a Public Institution works under special schemes and the notification is according to the scheme works out under a Special Committee constituted for that purpose. THErefore, the contention with regard to alteration of the specifications in the building is not open to the complainant as the Board has reserved its right subject to the schemes approved by the Committee while notifying the allotment itself.

AS far as the delay in handing over the possession of the flat is concerned, the O.P. has contended that the delay in handing over the possession is not on account of deficiency in service, but on account of various acts of nature, administration and various other problems which do not amount to deficiency in service. The explanation offered by the O.P. cannot be easily accepted. According to the original advertisement and the brochure issued by the Board the flat will be ready and has to be handed over by the end of 1994, but actually the flat was handed over to the complainant on 19.5.1999. There was no fault on the part of the complainant. Under those circumstances we are of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if we direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the delay in handing over the flat. Accordingly, we partly allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- to fetch interest at 12% p.a. from that date till payment. However, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in this complaint. Complaint partly allowed.