BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Tuesday, 29th December 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 64/ 2015
N.C. Lakshmi Devi, W/o Venkata Reddy, aged 65 years,
House wife, Resident of D.No. 1/441/13-5,
Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board,
Dargamitta, Kallurupalli, Nellore – 3, Nellore Dist. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 16-12-2015 in the presence of Sri K. Sudharsan Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Subramanyam, Govt. Pleader for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondent to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the schedule property within a specified time to pay compensation of ₹ 50,000/- towards mental agony, to pay ₹ 1,00,000/- illegal vindicating, vengeance of the respondent in refusing to execute registered sale deed and to pay ₹ 10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the respondent vide his paper publication dt. 24-1-2011 invited applications for allotment of houses under three different categories and attracted by the said paper publication the complainant submitted application in the form of demand survey application form on 28-2-2011 along with two D.D’s one for ₹ 200/- and other for ₹ 1,75,800/- towards cost of the application and EMD along with necessary enclosures duly signed by the complainant. Subsequently, the respondent addressed a letter dt. NIL /6/2011 informing the complainant that she was allotted MIG H.No. 62 against lot No. 49 during the drawl of lots conducted on 20-6-2011. On 21-7-2011 an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the respondent and on the same day the respondent gave no objection certificate in favour of SBI NRI branch, Kadapa for mortgaging the allotted house in favour of the bank for raising loan to meet the cost of the allotted house and on the same day a tripartite agreement was executed into between the complainant, respondent and SBI NRI branch, Kadapa. After payment of tentative cost of allotted house the respondent delivered possession of the house vide handing over letter dt. 25-9-2013. On 30-4-2014 the respondent addressed a letter to the complainant to pay final balance amount of ₹ 37,126/- on or before 31-5-2014 to enable him to process the file of complainant for registration. The complainant paid the balance amount of ₹. 37,126/- on 17-5-2014as demanded by the respondent and waiting for registration. On 25-5-2015 the complainant husband went to the respondent’s office at Nellore and gave two sets of N.J. Stamps dt. 19-5-2015 one for him and other for complainant as directed by the respondent, but later took one set N.J. Stamps and asked the complainant’s husband to retain the said set for time being. All of a sudden the complainant received a letter from respondent which is back dt. 14-5-2015 whereas the postal cover contains the date as 28-6-2015 asking the complainant to surrender either her house or the house allotted to her husband on the ground two members of the same family are not entitled to two separate houses. The complainant issued legal notice on 01-6-2015 for the demand of respondent to surrender either of the two houses stating it is not borne out by any conditions and illegal and unwarranted and the motive behind the issuance of the notice by the respondent is due to grudge as her husband filed suit in O.S.No. 468/2012 against the respondent on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Kadapa and succeeded the case and the complainant demanded to execute registered sale deed but the respondent not executed sale deed nor issued reply. The respondent who have collected all the amounts from the complainant towards the cost of the allotted house is under an obligation to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and since he failed to do so is grossly negligent in rendering service to the complainant. The fact of applying for allotment of houses both by her and by husband is very well within the knowledge of respondents since 27-2-2011 but bore grudge against them in view of filing O.S. No. 468/2012 and succeeding the same. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs against the respondent.
3. Respondent filed counter admitting that a notification was issued on 24-1-2011 calling application for allotment of houses as pleaded by the complainant and the complainant and her husband applied for house and in pursuance of the notification they have submitted all relevant documents and requisite amounts towards application and EMD and allotment of house No. 62 by conducting drawl of lots on 20-6-2011 and giving no objection certificate to the SBI NRI branch, Kadapa and entering with tripartite agreement on 21-7-2011 and the complainant paying entire sale price and possession letter issued to her on 25-9-2013 and the file was circulated to the Head Office but denied further allegations. It is further contended on verification records during process approval at Head Office it is found that the complainant’s husband N.C. Venkata Reddy has also allotted one MIG house bearing No. 36 at Putlampalli village, Kadapa District in the same colony and it is double allotment and directed initiate action as per rules at Divisional Level. The allotment of house by A.P. Housing Board is subject to fulfilment of A.P. Housing Board Self Finance Housing Scheme Regulations 1975. As per above rules and regulations two members of the same family are not entitled to separate house. Since, the complainant has successful in getting house on the basis of false and untrue information furnished by her in her application, her allotment house is void hence, the letter was addressed to the complainant voluntarily surrender in one of the two houses allotted to them. But not surrendered. A detailed letter on the double allotment issue was sent to the complainant on 28-5-2014 itself. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. The complainant is not entitled for registration of single house only and she has to choose single house for her and her husband. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent for not executing the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for sale deed in her favour by respondent in respect of schedule property as claimed?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A17 documents and on behalf of the respondent Exs. B1 to B8 documents are marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by the respondent.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the respondent having received the final payment and delivered possession of the allotted house after tripartite agreement for loan from SBI NRI Branch, Kadapa and refusing to execute registered sale deed in respect of the allotted house on the pretext that her husband also was allotted house is definitely deficiency of service as the complainant or her husband have no house prior to the allotment of the house. It is further contended that through the proceedings right from paper publication and delivery of the possession of schedule house the respondent never stated that wife and husband are not entitled for allotment of houses and there are number of people as per Ex. A15 allotted houses more than one house in Sl. No. 1, 2, 7 to 9 and 12 in the list and for Sl. No. 269 in Ex. A15 shows there are allotments to wife and husband but they were not refused for registration and the complainant was refused with obvious reason that the complainant’s husband filed suit in O.S. No. 468/2012 against the respondent to protect the government property, therefore, he refused to execute sale deed though received final amount and delivered possession of the house. Hence, the complainant is entitled for execution of registered sale deed in her favour apart from other reliefs for compensation and costs.
8. Per contra learned counsel for respondent contended that the allotment of house receiving amount delivery of possession etc., are all subject to rules and as per Ex. B8 broacher. The complainant has to surrender one house as two houses were allotted in one family. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.
9. As already noted the complainant had filed 17 documents viz., Ex. A1 to A17 in support of her case to prove that the respondent has grossly with animus intention refused to execute registered sale deed though she was allotted scheduled house in MIG group and no objection certificate was given for obtaining bank loan and tripartite agreement with the bank and respondent and complainant.
10. Ex. A1 is the photostate copy of paper publication dt. 24-1-2011 issued by the respondent for applying house by the public. Ex. A2 is the photostate copy of demand survey application form by the complainant submitted to respondent for allotment of house. Ex. A3 is the photostate copy of D.D’s submitted by the complainant along with demand survey application form. Ex. A4 is the photostate copy of allotment letter by respondent dt. 27-6-2011. Ex. A5 is the photostate copy of agreement between the complainant and respondent dt. 21-7-2011. Ex. A6 is the no objection certificate given by the respondent dt. 21-7-2011 for mortgage of the allotted house to the SBI NRI Branch, Kadapa for raising loan by the complainant. Ex. A7 is the photostate copy of tripartite agreement between complainant SBINRI bvranch Kadapa and the respondent. Ex. A8 dt. 25-9-2013 is letter sent by respondent handing over schedule house to the complainant. Ex. A9 is the letter addressed by respondent to the complainant to pay final balance amount on 30-4-2014. Ex. A10 is the photostate copy of receipt dt. 17-5-2014 to shows that the complainant paid balance amount. Ex. A11 is the notice issued by the respondent to the complainant to surrender one of the house allotted to her and her husband. Ex. A12 is the registered cover dt. 28-5-2015. Ex. A13 is the legal notice dt. 1-6-2015 issued by complainant to the respondent. Ex. A14 is the photostate copy of judgement in O.S. No. 468/2012 filed by the complainant against the respondent. Ex. A15 is the photostate copy of allotted list issued by the respondent office. Ex. A16 is the photostate copy of registered sale deed executed by respondent in favour of Shaik Razia Sultana, dt. 10-6-2015 and Ex. A17 is the registered sale deed executed Shaik Razia Sultana in favour of M. Nagendera Reddy, dt. 18-6-2015. As against these documents respondent filed Exs. B1 to B8 in support of their case.
11. Though a contention was raised that the two members in a family are not entitled for allotment of houses and if any such allotment is made they have to surrender additional house allotted in their favour as per Ex. A8 terms and conditions but a perusal of either Ex. A1, A2, A4 to A9 do not disclose the above condition. A careful perusal of the above documentary evidence filed by the complainant clearly goes to show at no point of time Ex. A8 broacher was supplied to the complainant and informed that two members of a family cannot apply for allotment of house and any such house is allotted they have to surrender one of such house voluntarily. The respondent after scrutinize the application, demand survey by the complainant allotted schedule house and allowed the complainant to go for a loan from SBI NRI branch, Kadapa and entered into tripartite agreement as per Ex. A7 and received full payment towards schedule allotted house from her and even possession certificate by handed over allotted house to the complainant by respondent. But refused to execute registered sale deed on the pretext that the complainant is not entitled for registration of schedule house as her husband was also allotted another house and the two members are not entitled for allotment of house. It is important to note here the complainant filed Ex. A15 photostate copy of list of allottees of houses by the respondent. In the list Sl. No. (1) Dr. K. Naganna, having residency at Christian Lane, Kadapa was allotted house No. 27, Sl. No. (7) P. Arun Kumari was allotted house No. 136, Sl. No. (8) Dr. V. Naga Maheswar Reddy, who is resident of D.No. 42/347-115, Kadapa both wife and husbands are allotted Houses 195 & 238. In Sl. No. (9) A. Kaleswar, Penugonda was allotted two houses 212 & 246, Sl. No. (12) D. Chandra Mouleswar Reddy, Resident of D.No. 2/1000, Cooperative Colony, Kadapa both wife and husband were allotted houses 68 & 269. It is said that the above allottees having already houses allotted houses. In Sl. Nos. 8, 9 and 12 were allotted two houses in one family. They were not issued any letters to surrender their houses. But the respondent issued notice to the complainant to surrender house allotted to them and refused to execute registered sale deed. The obvious reason for refusing appears to be that there is some aminocity between the respondent and complainant as the complainant husband filed O.S. No. 468/2012 against the respondent and succeeded in that case as per Ex. A14. If at all the complainant was not entitled for allotment of house as her husband also allotted house No. 36 the respondent would have rejected their application in initial stage itself without giving no objection for loan from the bank and entering tripartite agreement. The above circumstances clearly goes to show that the respondent was not vigilant in scrutinizing the application allotment of house to the applicant and having allowed the complainant and her husband to pay the entire amount towards the allotted house, even by mortgaging the said property to the bank, now refusing to execute register sale deed is not proper on the part of the respondent and thus there is deficiency of service on the part of respondent.
12. Learned counsel for respondent relied on judgment rendered in W.P.No. 22789/2007, dt. 19-7-2013 by the Hon’ble High Curt for the proposition that the complainant is not entitled for allotment of house as her husband was also allotted another house. But the above judgement is not applicable to the present case on hand as the facts of the above case are different from the case on hand. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the complainant is entitled for execution of registered sale deed in respect of schedule house from the respondent as prayed and also entitled for costs towards complainant. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of complainant.
13. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondent to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of scheduled property i.e. MIG House No. 62, situated at Putlampalli village, Kadapa district within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule within two months from the date of receipt of this order and shall also pay ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant. Rest of the claims of the complainant are disallowed
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 29th December 2015
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 P/c of Paper Publication Dt.24-1-2011 issued by the Respondent.
Ex: A2 P/c of Demand Survey Application Form, Dt. 28-2-2011.
Ex: A3 P/c of Two D.D.s for Rs.1,75,800 and Rs.200/-. Dt. 28-2-2011.
Ex: A4 P/c of allotment letter, Dt. 27-6—2011.
Ex: A5 P/c of agreement between the complainant and respondent, Dt.21-7-11
Ex: A6 P/c of No Objection certificate given by the respondent and S.B.I. (N.R.I Branch), Kadapa, Dt. 21-7-2011.
Ex: A7 P/c of Tripartite agreement the complainant, respondent and SBI, N.R.I. Branch, Kadapa.
Ex: A8 P/c of Handing Over letter sent by the respondent, Dt. 25-9-2013.
Ex: A9 P/c of letter addressed by the respondent to the complainant to pay final
balance amount, Dt. 30-4-2014.
Ex: A10 P/c of Meeseva receipt for Rs.37,126/-, Dt. 17-5-2014.
Ex: A11 P/c of notice issued by the respondent to the complainant, Dt. 14-5-2015.
Ex: A12 P/c of Registered cover, Dt. 28-5-2015.
Ex: A13 P/c of Office copy of legal notice issued b to the respondent by the complainant with postal receipt, Dt. 1-6-2015.
Ex: A14 P/c of Complaint and judgement in O.S. No.468/12 on the file of the court
of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.
Ex: A15 P/c of Allotted List issued by the Respondent Office.
Ex: A16 P/c of Registered sale deed executed by opposite party in favour of Shaik Razia Sultana, Dt. 10-6-2015.
Ex: A17 P/c of Registered sale deed executed by Shaik Razia Sultana in favour of
M. Nagendra Reddy, Dt. 18-6-2015.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent.
Ex: B1 P/c of Demand Survey Notification, Dt. 24-1-2011.
Ex: B2 P/c of instructions to the complaint.
Ex: B3 P/c of Application of the complainant No.15/2011.
Ex: B4 P/c of allotment letter Dt. 23-6-2011.
Ex: B5 P/c of sale agreement, Dt. 21-7-2011.
Ex: B6 P/c of no objection certificate Dt. 21-7-2011.
Ex: B7 P/c of another letter Dt. 27-6-2011.
Ex: B8 Original broacher published by APHB.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri K. Sudharsan Reddy, Advocate for complainant
- Sri P. Subramanyam, Govt. Pleader for respondent.
B.V.P. - - -
