TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD vs CONSUMER RIGHTS WELFARE ORGANIZATION

THE appeal arises out of C.O.P. No. 123 of 2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam under the following circumstances : Under Scheme 22 in Nagapattinam Housing Scheme, a house bearing No. 18 was allotted to the complainant by the Trichy Housing Unit in the year 1991 and it was subsequently handed over to the 2nd opposite party. At that time, the complainant was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 60 per month to the 2nd opposite party in addition to the maintenance charges which was already paid by him as well as other allottees of the house under that scheme. THE main grievance of the complainant is that the maintenance work carried out by the opposite parties was not at all satisfactory. His attempts to have the grievances rectified were not successful. THE complainant had earlier filed O.P. Nos. 122/1995 to 125/95 and the District Forum by order dated 26.2.1996 directed the opposite party to do certain things that only a few directions were complied with by the opposite parties and the rest were not complied with. THE alleged failure on the part of the opposite parties to carry out the order of the District Forum related to street lights in that colony. It also related to issuance of sale, maintenance work, clearing of bushes grown near water pump and sewer pump area, that non-clearing of bushes caused damage to the building structure that there were drainage blocks, that instead of providing water by digging four wells, the opposite parties were managing the water supply by providing it through two wells only, that because of this, there was acute scarcity of water supply, that sewer pump was not functioning properly, that the rental scheme colony sewage water was being pumped out on Nambiar Nagar Road, which caused hardship to the residents, that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at that point of time constructed many houses and sewer water outlet was connected to the open drain, which caused stagnation of water near the railway track which was adjacent to the colony houses where the complainant and other allottees were living. This also created other menaces like mosquito breeding and mosquito related diseases to the public of that area, that the assurances given by the opposite parties to lay underground sewer line with the permission of railways, had not been carried out, even though there was an order in that regard in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant. All the problems could have been solved by the opposite parties by using the maintenance charges paid by the allottees of the colony houses. THE complainant seeks redressal of all the shortcomings set out in the complaint. THE complainant also sought a direction for payment of Rs. 10,000 towards cost of the well constructed by him, a sum of Rs. 5,000 for alleged deficiency in service of the opposite parties in their service for his mental agony and for an order towards collection of same maintenance charges of Rs. 60 for the next 10 years in the future also.

THE opposite parties resisted the complaint contending, inter alia, as follows : THE maintenance with regard to water supply motor, sewage motor and removal of blockage in sewer line and watch and ward to safeguard the Housing Board materials were given on contract basis as per the order made by the 2nd opposite party. All the bushes around th pump room were being regularly cleared by engaging staff and the underground drainage blocks were also removed by engaging sweeper in the said colony. Four wells were dug up in order to provide water supply for the entire scheme. But the supply from 2 wells was found to be sufficient to meet the needs of the allottees and no complaint was received from any of the tenants or allottees except the complainant. THE opposite parties and the Housing Board authorities had intimated their ''no objection'' to have a well or borewell in the house of the complainant at his own cost and that he could not claim the cost of that expense incurred by him. So far as the third well was concerned, after testing the potability of water, further action would be taken to connect the water supply to the sump in the begining of 2001. THE fourth well also would be restored to function after purchase of necessary materials and the electrical items. THE electrical consumption charges for the two pump rooms were paid only by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and not by the contractor and the periodical cleaning of the same was also being taken by the opposite parties. THEre was no major blockage in the sewer water pump shed as alleged by the complainant. THE field staff of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board used to maintain the operation work very regularly, without any complaint from any allottees. THE maintenance work for the nearby rental housing scheme houses in respect of sewer water drain was handed over to the local body namely the Municipality in the year 1993 and they had taken care of the routine maintenance work while the opposite parties were attending to the routine and essential repair work periodically and with regard to the damaged water supply pipe lines under the rental housing scheme, Maraimalai Nagar, had been taken for action separately by addressing the Government for sanction of special allotment. As regards the street lights, the Municipality of Nagapattinam had taken charge for the maintenance and the opposite parties had paid property tax to the authorities, as far as the rental houses are concerned and the hire purchase allottees were also paying property tax separately. By making use of the tax amount, the municipal authorities made arrangements to relay the damaged roads. THE complaint deserves to be dismissed. On the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A15 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties no document was marked. Both sides filed written arguments before the District Forum.

The District Forum framed the necessary point for consideration as to whether the complainant was entitled for the relief sought by him under the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in his complaint and held as follows - The District Forum is not competent to pass any order with regard to the alleged non-compliance of the directions given in earlier complaints. The complainant ought to have filed Execution Petitions in time if any direction or consideration of the District Forum had not been complied with by the opposite parties. The grievance, the subject matter of old disposed of cases could not be considered in the present complaint. Certain items of defects pointed out by the complainant related to the Departments which did not fall under the administrative control of the opposite parties. Only the Municipal Authorities could attend to maintenance of main sewer connection and also the underground sewage connection. Equally the maintenance of street lights and connected motors had to be taken care of only by the municipal authorities. Certain other maintenance works were to be done by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Railway Authorities and they were not the parties before the District Forum. The opposite parties had admitted to several items of work being done by it by engaging labourers and the same should be continued without any failure in future also. The undertaking given by the opposite parties in the written version should be strictly adhered to that the opposite parties should see to it that the operation of the third and the fourth wells should be functional, that the opposite parties should ensure proper maintenance in the colony as they were collecting maintenance charges from each and every resident of that area including the complainant, that in order to carry out the direction given by the Forum, the opposite parties would have 30 days time. The opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 1,000 to meet out his alleged hardship and expenditure a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation. This order came to be passed on 12.11.2003.

THE appellants /opposite parties have filed the present appeal. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the complaint did not attract any of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, that the District Forum failed to consider the fact that the appellants had been discharging their duties to the full satisfaction of the scheme allottees but only the complainant filed the above complaint in his own self-interest that he is a habitual complainant that the District Forum ought to have seen that the water from the two wells would be sufficient to meet the needs of the allottees and that in any event, the District Forum was in error in directing payment of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant towards alleged hardship and expenditure without any basis and to pay cost of Rs. 1,000 for no fault on the part of the appellants.

ON the side of the complainant, it was submitted that inasmuch as the appellants had accepted their faults in the water supply and had given undertaking to connect all the four wells constructed in the scheme and to replace the damaged pipe line, the order of the District Forum could not be disturbed. It would appear that the complainant had attempted to make a complaint for ventilation of his personal grievances. He had filed the complaint in his individual capacity, though in the cause title it is mentioned that he is the Secretary, Consumer Rights Welfare Organisation and in our view the direction by the District Forum to pay Rs. 1,000 to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony and hardship and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of the present proceedings appear to be not justified. The opposite parties had in so many words explained the actual situation prevailing in the colony. They have also specifically detailed the various steps they had taken to ensure that the works undertaken by them and for which they had collected maintenance charges, were being diligently done by their labourers. Even with regard to water supply, they have in no uncertain attempts stated that out of four wells dug up, the supply from just two wells provided was copious and that it was totally unnecessary to press into service the other two wells. As regards the maintenance of sewage lines and other things, they are the concern of the other public bodies and the present opposite parties / appellants could not be made liable. The complainant has gone to the extent of saying that he had dug up a well in his house and that the opposite parties should be directed to meet the cost of the well dug up by him in his residence. It is rather strange that the complainant had gone to the extent of demanding payment for some work carried out in his private premises for his own comfort. That shows his attitude and it is not at all commendable. Persons claiming to fight for public rights should have better values. When the opposite parties had given their specific undertaking that whatever was expected of them as public body would be done. The District Forum was in error in directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs. 1,000 for his alleged mental agony and hardship. What kind of mental agony he had suffered is not made clear. The complainant appears to be a busy body. Equally the cost of litigation ought not to have been awarded to the complainant. He had approached the District Forum for ventilating some private grievances of his and the District Forum was in error in awarding cost in a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant. The order of the District Forum cannot at all be sustained with regard to the directions to pay these amounts. The appeal shall, therefore, stand allowed and the complaint will stand dismissed with regard to these two items directing payment of Rs. 2,000 (Rs. 1,000 for mental agony and hardship and Rs. 1,000 towards cost). There will be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Appeal allowed.