CHENNAI: Pulling up the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) for keeping to itself the final cost of a house allotted to a person and refusing to execute the sale deed, a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) has directed the Board to execute the deed immediately without insisting on the payment of increased cost and also pay the purchaser Rs.10,000 as compensation.

The Board should also pay him Rs.1,000 as costs, the Forum has ordered.

R. Muthukrishnan of Eswaran Nagar, Ramapuram here, complained to the DCDRF, Chennai (South), that in January 1989, the Board allotted a house to him for outright purchase at a tentative cost of Rs.2.2 lakhs.

He sought details of the final cost and also said he would accept the offer only if the cost increase did not exceed 10 per cent. As the Board replied that the final cost would not be more than 10 per cent of the tentative cost, he made the payment and took possession of the house in December 1990.

Later, following a letter from the Board that the selling price had been revised, he paid Rs.1,700 along with interest. In 1994, he received Rs.13,248 towards refund of interest amount. When he sought the sale deed, the Board said he should pay an extra amount as the land price had gone up. Despite his repeated letters, the Board failed to execute the deed.

Besides the TNHB Chairman, the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, K.K. Nagar Division, was cited as an opposite party. The opposite parties submitted that the final cost was enhanced by Rs.1.37 lakhs due to compensation awarded by various courts to ex-owners of land. The increased cost was intimated to the purchaser.

In its order, the Forum Bench consisting of the president, R. Aparna and members, V. Sheeba and J. Kadirvel, said the Board failed to produce relevant court proceedings to prove that a higher compensation was paid to land owners, which resulted in the escalation of the final cost.

A mere reading of the complainant's written arguments proved that the documents filed by the Board were not within his knowledge and the Board was all along suppressing facts regarding the enhanced cost.

Had the Board replied to the complainant's letters, he would have known the fate of the sale deed and the increased cost, it said.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail