TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. V MEENAKSHI
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2010-12-2
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 16,2010

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Appellant
VERSUS
V MEENAKSHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) THE husband of the 1st complainant, and the father of the complainants 2 to 5, was allotted a house MIG 66, on 7.3.1988, by the 1st opposite party, fixing the tentative cost at Rs. 90,584. Possession was also given on 28.6.1988. Lakshmi Kanthan, the original allottee, obtaining the Government loan, settled the entire cost on 7.10.1988, and the first opposite party informed that the sale deed would be executed, after the completion of 5 years, from the date of allotment, and they never informed about the final cost.
(3.) ALL of a sudden, in the year 1999, Lakshmi Kanthan, was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500, which was also paid on 28.9.1999, and even thereafter the opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed. Further on 14.8.2002, another demand for Rs. 33,700 was made, without assigning any reason, for which a request was made to withdraw, whereas a further communication, emanated from the 1st opposite party dated 25.6.2003, demanding a sum of Rs. 46,100 as on 31.7.2003. At the time of giving certificates, it was not informed about the capitalization, for the belated payment if any, and therefore the demand should be construed, as unfair trade practice, as well as deficiency in service, which caused mental agony, to the complainant, since the original allottee, Lakshmikanthan, died on 4.2.2003. The non -execution of the sale deed, should be construed as deficiency in service, for which a direction should be issued, to execute the sale deed, in addition to awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000. Thus, "a consumer complaint, came to be filed before the District Forum. The opposite parties, admitting the allotment of the house to Thiru Lakshmikanthan, as well the payment viz. initial deposit, as well as the subsequent monthly instalments, resisted the complaint, contending that the cost was originally fixed tentatively, subject to final cost to be approvedby the Board, that the petitioners did not furnish, document as informed, resulting audit objection, on which basis, capitalization has been worked out, from 1.10.1986 to 25.2.1988, which amount was claimed at Rs.33,700, and for the non -payment, interest is claimed, and further amount was claimed as per the rules and regulations, which cannot be described as deficiency in service, that the allottee is enjoying the property, and he is not entitled to any consideration, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.