'TNHB officials should comply with agreement terms'

By K.T.Sangameswaran

CHENNAI, NOV. 12. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) officials should comply with the terms and conditions of the agreements entered into between allottees and the board without any violation. If they commit any violation, they are liable for payment of compensation for deficiency of service. Also, they would be liable for sharing the brunt of the payment of compensation, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has warned.

Allowing an appeal from an allottee, who challenged a consumer forum's order directing him to pay a balance amount of Rs.8,976 to the board with 17 per cent interest, the Commission directed the board to refund Rs.8,416, collected in excess from the complainant, with 16 per cent interest.

Mr. M. V. Bhoopathy of NGGO Colony, Thiruvallur, complained to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, that he was allotted a house in the colony by the board and the tentative cost, including the land cost, was fixed at 18,239. He paid one-tenth of the tentative cost immediately after allotment and the balance amount was payable at Rs.169 per month for 20 years. The property was handed over to him on April 30, 1979 with a direction to pay monthly instalments.

As per the agreement between the board and the allottee, the final cost had to be fixed within one year from the date of handing over of the house, i.e. April 30, 1980. Upto January 1983, the complainant had paid Rs.26,655 towards the house cost. In June 1996, the board addressed a communication to him demanding payment of balance amount of Rs.8,976. The complainant challenged this before the forum.

The board Chairman and the Executive Engineer (Administration), TNHB, Korattur Division, Ashok Nagar, were cited as respondents.

The board contended that there was no deficiency of service. The cost was not finalised till February 15, 1996. After fixing, the complainant was served with a demand to pay the balance amount. The consumer forum directed the complainant to pay the balance with 17 per cent interest.

Mr. Bhoopathy preferred an appeal. The Commission president, Mr. (Justice) M. S. Janarthanam and member, Mr. Kayal Dinakaran, said the forum did not appear to have taken into account the documentary evidence placed before it. As per the agreement, the final cost should have been fixed before April 30, 1980. If the board did not do so, it alone should be blamed. ``The pity is the board was negotiating with the government for nearly 16 years'' for finalising the land cost. Further, nothing had been stated by the board about the rate per ground in the `lake poromboke'

Even as per the notice, the complainant had paid an excess of Rs.8,416. As per the agreement clause relating to refund of excess amount collected, the amount should be refunded with interest, the Commission said. `No due certificate' should be issued to the complainant. The sale deed should also be executed, the Commission said.

The Commission said the then board chairman and the executive engineer (Admn) had retired long back. Had they been in service, the Commission would have ordered payment of the refund amount initially from the board and later to be recovered from the two officers salary.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Bus services improve in Madurai, thanks to
           recruitment
Next     : 'Non-application of mind will not mean corruption'