VINOD KUMAR SAXENA vs STATE EMPLOYEES HOUSING FEDERATION

THIS appeal is by Complainant whose complaint against respondents-the State Employees Housing Federation and the M.P. Housing Board has been dismissed by the District Forum Bhopal vide order dated 27.8.2002 in Case No. 184/2001.

THE respondent No. 1 is a State Government owned Corporation constituted with a view to provide houses for the Government and public sector employees in the State. Respondent No. 1-Corporation jointly with respondent No. 2-M.P. Housing Board in the year 1989 undertook construction of some multi-storeyed flats in E-8, Sector Shahpura, Bhopal. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1, appellant-V.K. Saxena an employee in the State Government in July 1989 applied for allotment of one such house. He was initially allotted a D type flat on first floor on 12.7.1989, but later on replaced by C type flat on the ground floor on 22.10.1991. THE estimated cost of this flat was fixed at Rs. 1,31,148 which the appellant deposited by the end of year 1991. He was also put in possession of the house on 22.11.1991. On 1.4.1992 the appellant was granted a certificate by the Managing Director of respondent No. 1-Corporation certifying that the appellant has deposited the entire estimated cost of the house and that the ownership of house has also vested in him. Appellant on 2.9.1994 made an application with respondent No. 1 praying for final settlement of accounts and grant of no due certificate. In reply to this application, respondent No. 1 raised an additional demand of Rs. 6,707 and asked the appellant to deposit the same. THE amount was deposited on the same day i.e., 7.10.1994 by the appellant and thereafter a no due certificate was granted to him by the Corporation on 22.3.1995 clearly stating that the appellant has deposited Rs. 41,448 towards cost of land and Rs. 90,801 towards cost of house, total Rs. 1,32,249 and that nothing is due from him towards the cost of the land and house except that he would be liable to pay lease rent, maintenance and common service charges regularly. He was also to bear expenses of execution and registration of transfer deeds. No further demand was thereafter raised by respondent No. 1- Corporation and it appears that no action was taken by any party for execution of sale deed/lease deed of the house and land in question. THE appellant in the meanwhile was allocated to the newly created State of Chhattisgarh and he, therefore, on 1.1.2001 made an application to respondent No. 1-Corporation seeking permission for transfer of the house and sent reminders on 10.2.2001, 26.2.2001 and 9.3.2001. Respondent No. 1 Corporation by its letter dated 23.3.2001 demanded a further sum of Rs. 19,391 towards cost of the house before Complainant''s prayer for transfer of the house could be considered. This is how a dispute arose between the parties and the Complainant approached the Forum below seeking quashment of this demand and direction to respondent No. 1 Corporation to accord the necessary permission. Respondent No. 2 M.P. Housing Board is only a proforma party and no relief is sought against it either in the complaint or in appeal before this Commission.

Respondent No. 1 Corporation resisted the complaint and justified the said demand stating that the cost as indicated throughout this period from 1989 to 2001 was only estimated not final. The Forum below upheld the contention of respondent No. 1 and dismissed the complaint observing that the dispute regarding costing of a house is not cognizable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

WE have heard Mr. Vivek Agrawal, learned Counsel for appellant. None has however appeared for respondent No. 1-Corporation and the appeal against it was heard ex parte. Respondent No. 2 Board was represented by Mrs. Sunita Rajput. It is true that dispute regarding costing of a house is not a "consumer dispute" to be tried under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. However, in the instant case the price of the house in question was finally settled in October 1994 when respondent No. 1-Corporation in response to appellant''s application dated 2.9.1994 for final settlement of cost, raised a demand of Rs. 6,707 which was promptly deposited by the appellant the same day. Not only this, a no due certificate was also issued by respondent No. 1-Corporation duly signed by its Managing Director clearly stating that no amount is now due from the appellant towards the cost of the house. In this certificate it was nowhere indicated that the total cost of land and house indicated at Rs. 1,32,249 and paid fully by the appellant was again an estimated cost not the final cost of the house. Even otherwise it looked ridiculous that the cost of the house, constructed and delivered to the Complainant way back on 22.11.1991 remained unsettled for all these ten years (from 1991 to 2001). If that was so, that itself would constitute deficiency on the part of respondent No. 1 Corporation. We have no manner of doubt that the price as indicated in no due certificate was final and the appellant having deposited the same with respondent No. 1, no further demand could be made from the appellant towards price of the house. The demand of Rs. 19,391 made by respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 23.3.2001 was wholly unjustified and amounted deficiency in service on its part. The respondent No. 1 could not withhold permission for transfer for want of deposit of the said amount of Rs. 19,391 by the appellant. Needless to say the amount, if any due towards lease rent, maintenance and common services charges will have to be paid by the appellant who has also to get title deeds executed in his favour at his own expenses. Thereafter respondent No. 1 will accord permission to appellant for transfer of the property.

WE accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct respondent No. 1-Corporation to execute sale deed/the lease deed of the property in question in favour of appellant at his own (Complainant''s) expenses. The Complainant shall also be required to depsoit the amount if any, due towards lease rent, maintenance and common services charges. On execution of title deeds as aforesaid the appellant shall be free to transfer the property to third party. If any permission of respondent No. 1 is required the same shall be granted to the appellant in accordance with rules. WE however make no order as to costs which the parties are left to bear their own as incurred throughout. Appeal allowed.