V. JAMES vs CHAIRMAN And MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

- THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant applied for a HIG Flat on 13.9.89 in TVMR Extension Scheme as per the advertisement made by the opposite party in Hindu dated 6.8.89. He also paid the initial deposit of Rs. 5,000/-. THE complainant is a handicapped and as per G.O.Ms. No. 1020 dt. 8,12.82 he is entitled to allotment in the reserved quota. THE complainant was not allotted any flat in that scheme, but his name was kept in the waiting list as No. 2. THE complainant approached the authorities of the opposite party several times, but in vain. By letter dated 6 2.92 he was allotted flat No. HI /15 at Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur at a cost of Rs. 2,90,000/-. During the year 1990 the cost was only at Rs. 2,15,000/- In his anxiety to own a flat the complainant paid the full sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- and got the flat. Excess payment of Rs. 75,000/- is due to the delay and he has filed this complaint to recover, the excess amount of Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 14,200/- as rent paid and Rs. 20,000/towards subsidy. The complaint is resisted by the opposite party. It is admitted that the complainant applied for HIG Flat ''D type in Tiruvanmiyur Neighbourhood Scheme in hire purchase system under handicapped category. He remitted a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Out of the total flats, 23 flats were allotted on hire purchase and 22 on outright purchase basis. As per G.O. quoted by the complainant, the reservation in favour of handicapped was only 1 %, under hire purchase allotment. As the flats available were only 23, it was not possible to reserve any flat for the handicapped. The complainant''s application was, therefore, included in the general quota under hire purchase scheme and as per the allottees conducted, his name came in the waiting list as No. 2. As all successful allottees paid their amounts and took the flats, the complainant could not get any allotment. However his application was processed and permission was sought for allotment of a flat to the complainant. As per orders in Memo 1(1)/40494/91 dt. 21.1.92 Flat No. H1 /15 at Thiruvanmiyur Extension was allotted to the complainant on hire purchase scheme. He was asked to pay an initial amount of Rs. 97,000 / -. But the complainant agreed to make an outright purchase and paid the full amount. The flat was handed over to him on 31.3.92. Having accepted the alternative flat and paid the whole amount there for does not open to the complainant to claim that there was excess price. There was no deficiency of service.

Exhs. A1 to A6 and B1 to B6 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THERE is no controversy that the complainant who is a handicapped person applied for allotment of HIG Flat in TVMR Extension Scheme under the handicapped quota, and paid the registration fee of Rs. 5,000/-. He was not allotted any flat. The explanation offered by the opposite party is that there were only 23 flats in the hire purchase scheme and the quota for the handicapped was only 1 %. Consequently no flat could be reserved for the handicapped and the complainant could not, therefore, got any allotment, though he was the only handicapped applicant. This explanation is quite reasonable and acceptable. The complainant cannot claim damages for non-allotment of a flat under the handicapped quota, as not even a single flat could be kept as reserved for the handicapped. The complainant''s application was therefore, included in the general quota but in the lot conducted he has not been selected. His name was kept in the waiting list as No. 2. Here again, he was unsuccessful because all the successful allottees paid the amounts and got their flats. There was, therefore, no scope for allotting any flat to this complainant in the waiting list. There is, therefore, no deficiency of service on this score also.

THE complainant has been pressing for some allotment and the opposite party has taken a humane attitude and passed orders for the allotment of a flat No. Hl/15 at Tiruvanmiyur by order dated 21.1.92 at a cost of Rs. 2,90,000/-. THE complainant had paid the full amount and got the flat which has been delivered to him on 31.3.92. His grievance is that the value of this flat in 1990 was only at Rs. 2,15,000 /- and because of the delay, he had to pay Rs. 2,90,000/- and this 2unable to accept this contention. THE Housing Board has taken a sympathetic attitude towards the complainant and made the allotment of this flat in 1992 and the price payable is that prevailing in 1992. THE complainant cannot claim that the price in force in 1990 must be the basis. It is also pertinent to point out that the complainant has readily accepted the allotment, paid the full amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- and taken up the flat. Neither in Law nor on any fact is the complainant untitled to question the price for the flat has been allotted to him and which he has readily paid without any objection. THE claim for refund amount of Rs. 75,000/- is totally untenable. We are also unable to grant any compensation for mental agony or towards rent or towards subsidy from the Government in fact there is no evidence that the complainant has paid rent at Rs. 600/- p.m. during the interregnum nor has he been produced to show any G.O. to show that he was entitled to any subsidy. All the claims must, therefore, fail. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Complaint dismissed.