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.