Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P. PARTHASARATHI .
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
These appeals arise from the orders of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. New Delhi in First
Appeal Nos.252 and 307 of 1993, dated February 9, 1995.
The admitted position is that the respondent had
applied for allotment of a plot by the appellant on March
1,1966. He was selected for allotment of the plot or land on
February 6, 1967 subject to his depositing 25% of the cost
of the plot. It was accordingly communicated to him. In
furtherance thereof, the respondent had deposited the
requisite amount on March 28, 1967. On April 12, 1967 plot
No.1350 in Anna Nagar, Madras was allotted to the
respondent. He had executed lease-cum-sale agreement within
two months from the date of allotment. The bone of
contention thereafter is that the appellant had not
delivered the possession to the respondent and, therefore,
he did not comply with the payment of the balance amount in
six half-yearly installments. The contention of the
respondent is that he had discharged his obligation but the
appellants had not delivered the possession. Be that as it
may, the position now remains that the plot is not available
for allotment since, admittedly, it was converted into a
road for public purpose. On 30.12.1974, when the respondet
was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 8, 593.80.
He, however, had on April 22, 1975, deposited only Rs. 593
and kept quite. The respondent then made an application on
July 13, 1981 requesting the Board to hand over the
possession of the plot indicating his willingness to take
the same though admittedly it was not in existence. By a
letter dated March 4, 1985, the Board was threatened to take
legal action for nondelivery of possession. In 1985, the
respondent purchased a flat. by a communication dated July
21, 1989, he was informed that the plot was not available
for allotment since it was already used for Public purpose.
However, it asked the respondent to give a letter of
undertaking that he did not own any flat or plot in the
city. In furtherance thereof, he gave an undertaking on
November 1589 stating that he did not own any flat or plot
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
either in his own name or in the name of his dependents. It
is now an admitted position that he owns flat No.23 in
Paramount Apartments, Mount Road, Madras.
When he filed an application on April 16, 1992 before
the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission claiming
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for omission on the part of the
appellant-board to render service to him, the State
Commission returned the application on the ground that it
did not have pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.10 lakhs.
Resultantly, the respondent amended the claim petition
restricting his claim to Rs.9 lakhs by application dated
November 13, 1992. The Commission, after considering the
respective contentions, allowed the petition on May 24, 1993
granting a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation with interest
at 12% per annum. On appeal by the appellant as well as by
the respondent denying liabilities and claiming balance
amount separately, the National Commission while dismissing
the appeal of the appellant, allowed the appeal of the
respondent and enhanced the rate of interest from 12% to 18%
per annum. Thus these appeals by special leave.
The question is: whether the State Commission as well
as the National Commission have correctly appreciated the
true legal position when there was no deficiency in service
on the part of the appellant to the respondent? It is seen
that from 1967 to 1981 the respondent had not raised his
little finger as to what had happened to the allotment of
plot to him. Suddenly, he woke up in 1981 seeking allotment
of the plot but by that date the plot was already utilised
for public purpose, viz., laying the load. Thereby the plot
was no longer available for allotment to the respondent. But
when the Board was willing to accommodate him by allotting
another plot available under their jurisdiction, he was
asked to give an undertaking that he did not possess any
flat in the city. He gave an undertaking which is now found
to be a false statement, as on his own admission, he owns a
flat in the aforesaid place as mentioned hereinbefore.
Therefore, there is no deficiency in service rendered by the
appellant. On the other hand, the conduct of the respondent,
as narrated above, militated against him to seek any
compensation from the appellant.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of both
the Commissions stand set aside, but in the circumstances,
without costs. The appellants are directed to return the
money deposited by the respondent within one month from the
date of the receipt of the order.