VICE-CHAIRMAN, A.P.HOUSING BOARD vs A.P.HOUSING BOARD (LIG) HOUSING BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION

THE Vice-Chairman, A.P. Housing Board is the revision petitioner and the A.P. Housing Board (LIG) Housing Beneficiaries Association is the respondent in this revision petition which is against the order of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994.

199 MEMBERS of the respondent-Association, who were allottees of the LIG houses constructed by the petitioner-Housing Board, alleged a number of defects in the houses and approached the Housing Board as well as the Government Authorities for the necessary repairs, alterations and reliefs. Being dissatisfied with the inaction of the Authorities they filed a complaint in the year 1990 before the District Forum, West Godawari alleging that the houses have not been constructed conforming to the plan; the height of the houses is so low that the raised hands of an inmate would touch the ceiling fan; material s used for construction are of a poor quality and they were constructed in a low lying area which renders them totally inaccessible in the rainy season. The District Forum appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the houses in question and submit his report. The Advocate-Commissioner took the assistance of a Civil Engineer and submitted his report alongwith the report of the Civil Engineer. The report of the Civil Engineer mentions that the accommodation in the houses is very limited, that i t is inconvenient to live in these houses, that the houses are constructed in a low lying area, that the water is stagnating around the area, that no drainage system is provided to let out the rain water, that the level of the land around the houses has to be raised by two feet and that the entire area is water logged. He concluded that it is not possible for human beings to live in those houses during the rainy season. Taking note of this, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to each allottee for raising the ground level in the colony. The A.P. Housing Board appealed against this order before the State Commission, which after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent, confirmed the order of the District Forum. In the revision petition before us the principal argument raised by the petitioner is that no relief can be granted to the allottees for any defect in accordance with the term 11 of the agreement which was executed in September, 1988 when the houses were handed over to the allottees. Term 11 is as follows: "The owner shall not be responsible for any defects, structural or otherwise in the property and the purchaser shall be bound to purchase the property notwithstanding defects, if any, in construction, without any claim for compensation from the owner."

MOREOVER , the Board has also stated that the drainage is the responsibility of the local Municipality which collects cess and taxes and that the Municipality is currently constructing storm water-drains which we were told have now been completed. It was asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these facts were not taken into consideration either by the District Forum or by the State Commission while directing the petitioner to pay compensation to the allottees.

WE have gone through the order of the State Commission carefully and find that these two arguments were advanced before the State Commission as these have been discussed in their order while dealing with the contention that the allottees cannot claim any compensation for any defect in construction. The State Commission has rightly pointed out that it is not the defect in construction, but the situation of the houses in a low lying area which is the relevant point at issue. If the houses have been constructed in an area which is fully inundated during the rainy season and makes it impossible for the residents to make any movement from and to their houses, they would be of no use unless some remedial measures are taken. The contention of the A.P. Housing Board that the allottees were advised to fill up the courtyards to avoid flood water, to our mind does not meet the point that the total area surrounding the houses is so low lying that it becomes a pool of water in the normal rains and the conditions become much worse if either rain is excessive or there is any flood like situation. This particular deficiency has nothing to do with the structural or construction defects in the houses. It is a deficiency in respect of the very situation of the houses which should have been taken into account by the Housing Board right from the beginning of the construction of these houses. We have also considered the contention that it is the duty of the Municipal Council to construct drains so as to drain out the rain water and perused a letter from the Municipal Administration Department, Palakollu, to the Deputy Executive Engineer of the A.P. Housing Board, Bhimavaram, in this regard. We are not convinced that a mere construction of drain would help considerably in case the entire area is low lying, thus providing a scope of inundation and accumulation of water during the rainy season. Although, the respondents in their complaint before the District Forum had raised the question of few other defects including a separate bath-room and lavatory for each house, low ceiling and defective material, etc. We find that the District Forum awarded a compensation only for raising the ground level and not for other defects pointed out by them. The State Commission has also confirmed the order of the District Forum only in respect of the low lying area and not other defects which may or may not be covered by Term 11 of the Agreement mentioned earlier. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner we find no error of jurisdiction or of fact in the order of the State Commission and hence this revision petition has no merit. We accordingly dismiss it with no order as to costs.