- (1.) THE complainant s father was allotted a plot in the housing scheme promoted by the opposite party. Later, it was transferred to the name of the complainant. The complainant paid the amount due for the same. But the complainant came to know that it was allotted to somebody else and he was surprised and shocked to see someone else constructing a house there. Therefore, the present complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service.
(2.) THE complaint is resisted by the opposite party who contend that the complainant though paid an advance of Rs. 2,844/ - did not take any steps to put up construction in spite of letters and reminders. Therefore, in accordance with the by -laws, if a member failed to put up construction on the allotted plot within two years from the date of allotment, the allotment will be cancelled. Accordingly, it was cancelled and the plot was allotted to someone else and thus there is no deficiency in service.
(3.) FROM the very averments made in the complaint, it is clear that the allotment was made in the name of the complainant s father on 24.3.1971. Later, on the death of the complainant s father, it was transferred to his name. The allotment of the plot to a third party was made subsequently in the year 1973. The complainant has chosen to keep quiet till 1998. There is absolutely no explanation for this enormous delay. This delay emphasises the fact that the complainant has only now resorted to this action with a view to grab some benefit if possible by filing such application. Secondly, it is to be pointed out that the complaint is barred hopelessly by limitation. The complainant himself admits in the complaint that the opposite party sent letters on 24.11.1978, 3.2.1982, 14.5.1982, 21.3.1984, 25.11.1985, 28.8.1985 and 3.5.1986. But according to him, they were to the old address in Triplicane, Chennai. The complainant has given his address as residing at Sadras West, Kalpakkam . From the records produced, we find that a letter about transfer of share in his name was addressed to his Chennai address by the opposite party on 22.12.1970. To the same address was sent a communication on 30.3.1971 requiring the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,094/ -. It is evidenced by Ex. A9. On 9.3.1978 the complainant has written to the opposite party stating that he has shifted to Kalpakkam and has informed them of the change of address. It is to the Kalpakkam address on 11.3.1978, the opposite party has sent a letter which is marked as Ex. A12. Therefore, the opposite party has taken note of the change of address and have addressed the complainant only to his Kalpakkam address as intimated by him. He admits that several letters were sent by the opposite party. His contention that they were sent to his old address cannot be accepted in the face of Ex. A12 the letter dated 11.3.1978 addressed by the opposite party. In such circumstances, suddenly, on 15.2.1993 he writes a letter to the opposite party stating that he was shocked to find a stranger put up a house in his plot. The opposite party has written on 5.3.1993 stating that they informed the complainant by several letters reminding the complainant to complete the construction within 18 months and that a publication was also made in Tamil Daily on 23.9.1986 and 10.10.1986 and in spite of it the complainant has failed to start or complete the construction. Therefore, as per the resolution of the Board, the allotment was cancelled and it was allotted to one Sambandhan and hence the request of the complainant cannot be considered. Thus, it is clear that the complainant s case rests upon imaginary grievance. The complainant has kept quiet from the year 1973 onwards he did not choose to put up any construction though he was reminded by several letters. Publication was also made in the newspapers informing about the same and also stating that the allotment will be cancelled. In spite of it, it is only in the year 1993, he chose to wake up to the situation and wrote letters to the opposite party. The opposite party sent a reply promptly as we see from the reply dated 5.3.1993. But, in spite of it, the complainant slept over the matter again and has rushed to this Forum only in the year 1998. Therefore, from the above facts, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service and that the complaint is barred by limitation and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/.;