- (1.) THE Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, Tiruchirapalli stating that he applied to the opposite party for allotment of a house. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 19,000/ - towards the cost of the allotted house as advance and the balance amount was to be paid by way of monthly instalments by the complainant's employer. The petitioner has been residing in the said house for about five years and then he shifted to a rented house. The building developed cracks all over. Hence, the complainant wrote several letters to the Housing Board. But there was no response. The complainant sent a notice dated 6.1.1998 through his lawyer calling upon the opposite party to effect the repair works. Instead of repairing the defect, a reply was sent to the complainant requiring him to pay maintenance charges of Rs. 7,560/ - and further stating that if the amount is not paid within a week, the allotment would be cancelled. The complainant has been paying the maintenance charges regularly. In spite of the notice and reminders, the opposite party has failed to carry out the repairs and on the other hand threatened to cancel the allotment. Therefore the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to carry out the repairs and for award of costs.
(2.) IN the version filed by the opposite party it was urged that the complainant was allotted a house in Phase I HC 574. The construction of the house was made satisfying all the requirements. The complainant took possession in 1987. After nearly a period of 11 years he has chosen to come forward with this complaint. The complaint is made with a view to make unlawful gain. The opposite party has already sent a letter dated 29.12.1997 stating that the maintenance charges due had accumulated over the years and has gone up to Rs. 7,560/ -. The complainant cannot refuse to pay the same. The maintenance of the house has been entrusted to the Navalpattu Panchayat. Till date a sum of Rs. 7,650/ - is due and payable by the complainant to the opposite party.
(3.) THE District Forum, Trichy before which the matter came up directed the opposite party to carry out the repairs within two months and pay a sum of Rs. 500/ - as costs. Hence, the present appeal. The present complaint was laid before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichy on 21.8.1998 and was taken on file on 25.9.1998. According to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant was residing in the said house for about 5 years and then he shifted to a rented house. He has not stated when he occupied the house and when he shifted from there. On perusal of the records produced, we find that the complainant took possession of the house in the year 1987. Therefore, to come and say that cracks developed all over the building and that it should be set right by the Housing Board after a period of 10 years is impossible to accept. The allotment having been made in January, 1987 and the complainant having moved out of the house later, the complainant has come forward with this application only after a lapse of the stipulated period of limitation. In his very letter dated 16.4.1992 he has stated that he was allotted the house by order dated 27th January, 1987 and thereafter he has been residing in the house. It is only in the year 1992 for the first time he has chosen to say that cracks have developed in the house. To this letter and the letter dated 26.9.1992 written by the complainant, the Housing Board has sent a reply that if there are repairs to be carried out, the complainant should meet the undersigned viz., the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer to give undertaking letter to the effect that any further redress shall be borne by him on or before 30.4.1993. On 27.6.1993, another letter was sent by the Executive Engineer stating that to the concerned letter there has been no response from the party and final notice was given on 18.2.1994 asking him to come and give the consent letter in connection with the attending to the repairs to the house. No such consent letter was given. Again another reminder was sent under Ex. A -9 dated 23.6.1994. It is only on 14.7.1994 he has written to say that he consents for the cost of repairs if any due to distress caused due to passage of time will be borne by him. On 9.8.1994 the Executive Engineer has written to say that the cost of repairs would come to Rs. 38,000/ - and it would be undertaken by the Board with following present rules approved and that if the cost of repair exceeded Rs. 10,000/ -, the Housing Board will undertake the work only if a matching contribution in excess of Rs. 10,000/ - is borne by the allottee and the allottee is given the option to undertake repair by himself over Rs. 20,000/ - and the Housing Board will pay its matching contribution upto Rs. 10,000/ -. Therefore, they have written to say that the estimate for the repairs has to be cleared by the Housing Board before proceeding with the work. A further letter has been addressed on 21.10.1998 stating that the cost of repairs was estimated at Rs. 40,820/ - and symptoms of distress were found due to sub -soil settlement and that the complainant shall pay 50% of the cost i.e., Rs. 20,410/ - and the amount should be remitted within 15 days. On 29.12.1997 they have written to say that since the maintenance charges of Rs. 7,560/ - due till December, 1997 were not paid by the complainant, his house has been locked on 28.11.1997. In the present context of the correspondence, we have to see whether it is a case where deficiency of service can be culled out. Even according to the complainant, he occupied the house only for few years and, thereafter he vacated it. He has not chosen to bring to the notice of the authorities concerned about the nature and quality of construction or about the repairs to be done. He has kept quiet from the year 1987 and has chosen to write a letter about the building developing cracks only in the year 1992. Thereafter, in spite of the letter of the Housing Board he has kept quiet till 1997 and has not chosen to give his consent letter or deposit 50% of the amount to enable the Housing Board to carry out the repairs. It is only in the year 1998, he has chosen to move the lower Forum. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of the Housing Board. The Housing Board has finished the construction and handed over possession. The complainant lived in the house for a period of 4 to 5 years and then he vacated it and began complaining about the nature of construction and the repairs only after he vacated the house nearly after 6 to 7 years of completion of the construction. He has not remitted the maintenance charges. He has failed to send his consent letter to bear 50% of the cost of repairs. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be stated by any stretch of imagination that the appellant/opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service in this regard. Consequently, we are of the view that the order of the lower Forum cannot be maintained.;