SURYA NARAYAN MOHAPATRA vs CHAIRMAN, ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD

Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member

HEARD Mr. R.K. Pattnaik the learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. S.K. Nayak the learned Counsel for the opposite parties-Orissa State Housing Board, Bhubaneswar. The complainant Surya Narayan Mohapatra applied to the Chairman, Orissa State Housing Board, Bhubaneswar for allotment of one three beded room flat in Toshali Housing Complex at Satyanagar. Accordingly, the opposite party informed the complainant vide his letter dated 26.6.1992 that the complainant has been provisionally allotted a three beded room apartment with a provisional cost which likely to be revised shortly and also asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 1,17,500/- by 15.7.1992. The complainant deposited first Rs. 35,000/- on 30.5.1992 and again Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.4.1993 though he was asked by the opposite party to deposit Rs. 1,17,500/- by 31.3.1993.

The opposite party intimated the complainant on 14.2.1994 that the final cost of the above apartment had been fixed in between Rs. 6,56,299/- to Rs. 6,83,048/- depending upon the design and built-up area and also intimated that the project was expected to be completed by end of December, 1994. The complainant made the payment as per schedule of payment and the last payment was on 31.12.1994. The opposite party also intimated the complainant that in case of lottery, he would be allotted a flat, which would cost more than the minimum cost of Rs. 6,21,299/-, the complainant shall be asked to deposit the amount in one instalment before December, 1994. In addition to the above, the opposite party also intimated the complainant that, interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum would be charged in case payment was not made by 31st December, 1994. Further, the opposite party has intimated the complainant on 22.11.1994 that the complainant may pay Rs. 2,51,900/- by 31.12.1994 and Rs. 2,51,899/- by 28.2.1995 as the complainant had only deposited Rs. 1,52,500/- till 22.11.1994.

THE complainant in his letter dated 25.3.1995 requested the opposite party to extend the period of payment upto December, 1995 and allowed him to pay in 5 to 6 instalments. THE opposite party has also given a choice to the complainant by sending a letter to the complainant dated 18.11.1995 wherein it is intimated that in case the complainant is not interested to wait he may opt for an HIG single House (core) or HIG Duplex (core) at Maitri Vihar, Bhubaneswar. It is evident that the complainant has deposited total Rs. 4,06,500/- by 27.6.1996, though he has been advised to deposit further Rs. 2,76,500/- by 30.4.1998, the total cost of the house being is Rs. 6,82,000/- for a floor area of 1,063 sq. ft. We have perused the written submission of the complainant and show-cause filed by the opposite party and gone through in detail. The question arises before us as follows : "Whether this matter comes under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and secondly whether the opposite parties are liable for compensation, because of any deficiency in service." It is well-settled that such type of disputes come within the perview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and we need not go for any details of the case so far as that point is concerned.

SO far as deficiency of service on the part of the Board is concerned, the complainant wants a house from an Orissa Govt. Undertaking i.e., Orissa State Housing Board. It is further clear that O.S.N.S. is bound to consider his case as per rules and regulation laid down by the Board of Directors which is duly approved by the Govt. of Orissa. The complainant is aggrieved due to escalation of the cost of the house which was originally Rs. 3,25,000/- and enhanced to Rs. 6,86,048/-. The learned Counsel for the complainant strenuously urged that such escalation is arbitrary. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant because admittedly the applicant was a late entrant to this scheme for allotment of the house vide his letter under Annexure-1. The Board without any hesitation accepted the complainant as an applicant and asked him to deposit Rs. 35,000/- which the complainant deposited on 30.5.1992. The Board by their letter dated 26.6.1992 vide Annexure-3 provisionally allotted a three beded room apartment under the scheme and specifically mentioned therein that the provisional cost of the apartment is Rs. 3,25,000/- but was likely to revise shortly. By their letter dated 15.3.1993 the Board informed the complainant that he was allowed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,17,500/- by 31st March, 1993 and this was in continuation of their earlier letter dated 26.6.1992. By their letter dated 28.3.1994 they intimated the complainant the final cost of the apartment at Satyanagar has been fixed in between Rs. 6,56,299/- and Rs. 6,86,048/-. Thus at no point of time the Board gave out assurance to the complainant that under no circumstances they would increase the cost of the building. During the continuance of construction of the apartments for various reasons the builders may enhance the cost because of escalation of labour costs, cost of materials etc. This happens in every case of construction of building. Considering the fact and circumstances of the present case, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that the escalation of the cost of the apartment has been arbitrarily fixed. No materials have been placed from the side of the complainant to sustain such a contention. We, therefore, hold that the complainant cannot challenge the escalation of the price in respect of the house allotted.

THE complainant filed the C.D. case on 16.12.1996. THEreafter sent two letters to the opposite parties dated 27.10.1998 and 30.2.1998 requesting the opposite parties to reserve one flat among the following three flats i.e., Flat Nos. A-108, A-208 and A-207. After receipt of the above letters the opposite parties intimated the complainant that flat bearing No. A-207 in 4th Block has been allotted in his favour having the final cost of Rs. 6,82,000/- for floor area of 1,063 sq. ft. as intimated earlier on 14.2.1994. Thus we do not find any deficiency of service and dispose of this case accordingly.

CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances, we direct the complainant to take the possession of the Flat No. A-207 in 4th Block at the cost of Rs. 6,82,000/- or if he does not want to take the flat, the opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs. 4,06,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date 27.6.1996 till the payment is made. No cost. Case disposed of.