TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD vs R. KESAVAN

THE complainant''s case is as follows : THE complainant applied to the opposite party for allotment of a flat under HIG scheme and remitted a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. THE complainant was advised by the opposite party to remit a sum of Rs. 1,79,245/- towards the cost of the flat within a month of the intimation. THE complainant applied for a loan from the Electricity Board and, therefore, requested the opposite party to grant him time by three months. THE opposite party directed the complainant to pay interest on the said sum for three months and accordingly the complainant paid interest of Rs. 6,535/-. On 2.4.1992 the complainant paid the sale price of Rs. 1,74,000/- after deducting the advance sum of Rs. 5,000/-. THE complainant received a letter stating that the house is ready for occupation, but on verification the complainant found that it was not complete. THErefore, the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party and enquired about the completion of the house. THE opposite party assured that the house will be completed within a week. THE complainant took possession of the house on 19.6.1992. THE collection of interest amounting to Rs. 6,535/- from the complainant is not legal. THE house has not been provided with basic amenities such as electricity supply, water supply, plastering of windows, screen painting and the shutters were not fixed and the doors and windows were incomplete. Under law, the complainant is deemed to be the owner of the flat when he took possession of the house. THE complainant approached the opposite party several times to complete the construction with all amenities. During the said period viz., from 2.4.1992 to 16.2.1993 the complainant was residing outside in a rented house with a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-. THE complainant is entitled to recover the rent of Rs. 8,000/- for 8 months from the opposite party. THE complainant is also entitled to interest at 8% on the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. THE complainant was compelled to take leave and visit Coimbatore on several occasions. He was put to much mental agony. THErefore, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay interest in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the date of deposit and direction to the opposite party to pay the rent paid by the complainant for the period during which he was compelled to rent out a building and also direct the opposite party to pay interest at 12% on the sum of Rs. 1,74,000/- from 2.4.1992 till 16.2.1993 when the house was completed and to pay back the amount of Rs. 6,535/- collected by the opposite party in violation of the allotment and pay a sum of Rs. 500/-.

THE opposite party contended as follows: THE complainant is not a consumer. THE allegations that the house was incomplete and that he complained about the same to the opposite party and that the opposite party promised to complete it at the earliest, are all false. It is not correct to say that the collection of interest in a sum of Rs. 6,535/- is illegal. THE other allegation that basic amenities such as electricity supply, water supply, plastering of windows, screen painting were not done and that shutters were not provided to doors and windows is equally false. THE complainant is not entitled to recover any amount much less towards the rent alleged to have been paid by him. THE complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation much less towards mental agony. THE complainant is not entitled to claim interest on the sum of Rs. 1,74,000/-. THE complainant took possession of the house without any objection and, therefore, he is estopped from saying that the house was not fit for occupation. THErefore the opposite party prays that the complaint may be dismissed with costs. The lower Forum allowed the complaint and hence the present appeal.

The findings of the lower Forum cannot be accepted at all by us. The complainant applied for allotment and paid the deposit. Then he took three months time to pay the balance of the sale price which he did accordingly. The house has been constructed and he has been given possession. Therefore, there is no longer any relationship between the complainant and the opposite party either as a consumer or as a hirer of service. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable. The complainant says that he paid the deposit of Rs. 5,000/- for which he claims interest now. The complainant says that he could not remit the sum of Rs. 1,79,245/- demanded of him and so he requested for time by three months and he was granted 3 months time subject to the condition that he must pay interest on the sum for the said three months. Accordingly he paid the interest. Again, it is stated by him that he had to occupy a rented accommodation because the house was not complete and, therefore, the rental expenses incurred by him has to be refunded by the opposite party. It is also his claim that he is entitled to claim interest at 12% on the sum of Rs. 1,74,000/- being the sale price of the house. All these claims made by the complainant cannot at all arise for consideration before the Consumer Forum. It becomes purely a money claim against the opposite party. Therefore, the Consumer Forum cannot intervene in such matters. Hence on this ground as well the complaint deserves to be rejected. Apart from that, on merit, we find that the complainant has absolutely no case as well. The complaint has been presented in the year 1994. Admittedly he took possession on 19.6.1992. The sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by him towards advance and registration charges payable by him for the allotment of the house. The sum of Rs. 1,79,245/- was remitted by him as the price of the HIG flat allotted to him. It was remitted by him on 2.4.1992. For the amount remitted by him towards the sale price, the construction has been completed and the sale deed has been executed in his favour. The sum of Rs. 1,74,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- which was paid as advance towards registration charges and for the consideration received, the contract has been performed by the opposite party by handing over the building constructed by them on 19.6.1992 itself. Therefore it is not known how and under what provisions of law the complainant can claim interest on the said sums much less @ 12% . With regard to the compensation claimed by him by way of monetary loss sustained by him, his claim is quite inconsistent. For, he has stated that he was residing outside on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- from 19.6.1992 to 16.2.1993. Whereas he took possession on 19.6.1992. Even assuming that he was residing elsewhere from 19.6.1992 to 16.2.1993, he cannot claim any amount much less in a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. The complainant would say at one point of time that the rent was Rs. 4,000/- and again he claims @ Rs. 8,000/- for 8 months. Thus, this would show how untenable his claim is. He has not produced any agreement or contract between the parties by which he is entitled to claim any such amount. Further, he has not produced any material to substantiate that he did actually occupy a flat or house on monthly rent and has paid the rent as alleged by him. Therefore, his claim besides being untenable in law, is also unsustainable on facts. The complainant''s case is that the opposite party demanded and collected interest in a sum of Rs. 6,535/- from him. It is true that the opposite party collected the same. It was because the complainant who was bound to remit a sum of Rs. 1,79,245/- within a month from the date of intimation had requested for three months'' time and it was accordingly granted to him on condition that he must pay interest on the said sum for three months. Pursuant to his agreement to pay, he was granted three months time to pay the balance and accordingly he paid the sum of Rs. 1,79,245/-. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 6,535/- has been paid by him only in pursuance of the agreement to grant him three months'' time to remit the sum of Rs. 1,74,245/- viz., the sale consideration. Having agreed to pay and having made the payment, it is not open to the complainant especially after a period of two years to ask for refund of the same. Therefore, it is obvious that none of the claims made by the complainant is tenable in law and the lower Forum has not appreciated the questions of law and facts involved in this case and erred without applying its mind in accepting the claim of the complainant. Therefore, we are satisfied that the complaint deserves to be dismissed, meaning thereby that the appeal has to be accepted with costs.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250/-. The order of the lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/-. Appeal allowed with cost.