SUSAMA MANJARI PATI vs CHAIRMAN, ORISSA STATE HOUSING SCHEME

THE alleged petition is regarding deficiency in service of Orissa State Housing Board (hereinafter the Board) constituted under the Orissa State Housing Board Act, 1968.

OPPOSITE parties advertised in a daily Oriya Newspaper about their MIG housing scheme at Chandrasekharpur under self-financing scheme in 1989, in which provisions of infrastructure facilities, cost etc. were reflected. Approximate cost of the house was revealed as Rs. 1,90,000/- and down payment required was Rs. 30,000/- expected date of delivery being 31.3.91. Each house had a plinth area of 920 Sq.feets, as per the scheme. In persuance to the advertisement the complainant applied for the same paying requisite registration amount, and she had been allotted a MIG-II house on 7.9.90 subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by 30.9.90 and Rs. 30,000/- by 30.12.90. In case of default, the applicant is subjected to pay 15% interest for default amount for default period. Complainant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- on 29.12.90 and Rs. 30,000/-10.5.91, thus delaying one month & five months respectively for both installments. But her grievance is that to charge interest from a date prior to 30.9.90, the schedule date of payment is against their term and condition. Inspite of depositing entire amount the house was not given possession, neither process of documentation was initiated. Her letter of 25.7.91 to the Board remained unanswered. Complainant was paying interest to her employer, from whom she had obtained loan and is afraid of disciplinary action due to failure in creating equitable mortgage of the house in favour of her employer. Apart from that she had to accommodate her family in a rented house paying Rs. 1000/- per month. On 11.10.91 she was given final allotment order of No. 120 of Phase-VI and was informed that after joint verification physical possession will be given from 10th January, 92 onwards, after completion of documentation formalities. On 7.11.91 complainant informed opposite party about the defects found in the house. Except one, no other effects was rectified. In the meantime final costing of the house was made to Rs. 2,12,713/- for even a reduced plinth area which was 898 Sq. feets. Board asked for the escalated amount to be deposited on or before 12.5.92 including penal interest of Rs. 10,411/- which is wrongly calculated and much higher than the actual interest to be paid for default. No infrastructure facilities were provided by the opposite parties which had been promised by them in the Brochure, which is required for human habitation. Complainant lastly submitted that due to escalation of house for an unreasonable amount, delay in giving possession, charging excess penal interest and above all allotting a defective house, she had sustained financial hardship and mental tension, for which she claims 15% interest from opp. parties on her deposited amount from 31.3.91 till actual date of delivery of possession. Unjustified penal interest is rectified, she claims to be adequately compensated for staying in a rented house. She states if the defects are not rectified within one month she would get it assessed by a valuer and be compensated later on by the opp. party.

In their counter submitted by opp. parties every allegation of negligence is denied. Regarding delay in construction they have submitted that due to heavy and continuous rain from November ''89 to April ''90 there was acute scarcity of bricks, for which the construction work was bound to be delayed. And also State Electricity Board delayed installing 33 K.V. Sub-Station as per agreement. So it was beyond their control to complete the construction work within stipulated time. Escalation of price was approved in the Board meeting on 8.10.91, which was justified due to delay, excess excavation of foundation, brick machinery, grill fitting etc. At the time of taking over possession the complainant never complained about the price. Regarding defect their averment is that they rectified some of the defects which were reasonable. So in view of the facts and circumstances, the allegation of negligence is not tenable.

OPPOSITE party is a statutory body constituted under the Orissa Housing Board Act, 1968. It provides house to deserving persons under various schemes prepared by them. One such scheme, is Chandrasekharpur M.I.G. Housing Scheme, under which the complainant applied for allotment of a house. She was allotted M.I.G. 120 Phase-VI. But her main grievances were of delay in delivery of possession, lack of infrastructure facilities, defective construction, demanding excess penal rate and interest. Cause shown by the Board for delay was excess rain from November ''89 to April ''90 for which construction was bound to be delayed. Plea taken appears to be quite justified. Housing Board can not be held responsible for this unforeseen factor and could not have done anything. Regarding escalation of price they submit that, the delay, extensive foundation work etc. were responsible. Above all as the price declared by them earlier was provisional and final costing was yet to be done, so escalation of houses were not unreasonable. Their averment regarding removal of reasonable defects appeas to be ridiculous. Normally it is understood that when Housing Board undertakes to providers houses to intending purchase it would provide houses fit to live in. But it is seen that always the complaint of defective construction is there with the Housing Board. The averment "defects those were reasonable" implies that there are certain defects those are unreasonable and should not be removed by them. If they can make those unreasonable defects why should not they remove them? Public money is utilised for constructing houses without defects and not with defects. So it is their responsibility to see that proper construction work is done. Personal accountability should have been imposed upon the officers or persons in charge of construction work to see that it is done, perfectly. In this case the defects mentioned by the Complainant are genuine. We direct the opp. parties to rectify all the defects within 3 months of getting the order, failing which the complainant may rectify them and produce valuation certificate by a registered valuer to the opp. parties, after which the Board will pay the amount to the complainant. Opp. parties have gross negligence here, for which they are accountable.

IN their brochure Housing Board specifically stated that "Black topped roads with footpaths, street lights and adequate open space with community facilities like shopping complex, school, playground, Dispensary etc. have been provided. Water supply is through individual house connection, sewarage disposal is through integrated sewarage system. When a person purchases a house from the Housing Board, he pays for the basic facilities required for living like a human being. The infrastructure facilities had been promised by the opp. parties in their brochure. Naturally cost of houses would have been calculated including those facilities. This breach on part of opp. parties amounts to negligence. Since this is grievance of a single complainant for the loss sustained by all the other allottees collectively also including her can not be compensated. Had the complaint been made by any association formed by M.I.G. housing Colony, it would have been different. Failure to provide infrastructure facilities is depriving the allottees of their basic requirements required for normal living. So we direct the Board to provide infrastructure facilities within 6 months of the order, failing which Chandrasekharpur Phase-VI alottees can file a fresh complainant collectively. Regarding excess penal interest, the opp. parties were asked to calculate it again during the course of hearing, to which they agreed. So there was no need to ask them to produce the ledger etc. We direct them to adjust the excess amount towards the escalated price and deduct the amount payable by the complainant. No costs. Petition partly allowed. Complaint partly allowed.