TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD vs R.SIV ASUBRAMANIAYAM

FIRST Appeals No. 139/1994 and 140/1994 have been filed respectively by Tamil Nadu Housing Board (opposite party in Original Petition No. 225/1993 before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) and by the complainant against the order dated 31.12.1993 passed by the State Commission, Chennai.

BRIEFLY , facts of the case are as follows. The complainant was the highest bidder in a public auction held by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the sale of housing plot at Anna Nagar, Chennai; he immediately paid a part amount and was awaiting the allotment order of the Housing Board. However, after three years of the date of auction he found some persons constructing house on the said plot and he came to know that the plot was divided into two and allotted to two other parties. The complainant filed three WPs/W M Ps before the High Court, Chennai for, (i) directing the Housing Board to allot the plot to him; (ii) to atleast allot an alternative plot; or (iii) to reserve an alternative plot. On the allotment of plot and other related matters, there was a running dispute between the Housing Board and the complainant, and the latter had to file as many as eight more WPs/ W M Ps before the High Court, Chennai and finally he could get allotment of another plot and take possession in June, 1991. Aggrieved by the course of events, the complainant filed complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission claiming interest on the amount he had paid to the Housing Board and 18% p.a. from the date of each payment upto June, 1991, compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for mental agony and also another sum of Rs. 4.1 lakhs towards financial loss including the additional expenditure to be incurred to put up the building at that distance of time.

THE State Commission considered the matter and found that there was gross deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the Housing Board and ordered the Board to pay Rs. 1,64,934/- by way of interest on the amounts paid by the complainant, Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/-towards costs to the complainant.

THE two appeals preferred against the above said order of the State Commission were earlier posted for hearing on 11.3.1997 and adjourned for 16.4.1997 on the request of Counsel appearing on both sides in order to enable them to put forward their arguments effectively on the next date of hearing with the support of the relevant case law. We finally heard the Counsel on both sides in both the appeals on 26.8.1998. This case is one where the allotment of the plot has been made for the highest bidder in a public auction. We do not intend to go into the merits of the case as we consider that the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer FORA. We have held in similar matters vide Panjim Planning and Development Authority v. Mrs. Rashmi A. Sirsat and Ors., (Revision Petition No. 258 of 1992 decided on 10.1.1994), 1994 1 CPJ 195 and Shield Constructions Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. v. Nainital Lake Development Authority and Ors., (Original Petition Nos. 230 and 249/1993 decided on 21.6.1996), 1996 3 CPJ 11 (NC) that Consumer FORA cannot grant any relief in matters where the transaction has arisen out of auction sale which is tantamount to outright sale of immovable property and, therefore, there is no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between the parties.

IN the light of our decisions supra, the complaint has to be rejected. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. The appeals are disposed of as above.