Appeal No. 62 of 2021, R. Venkataraman v. Indian Railway Welfare Organization

What the appeal covers

Appeal No. 62 of 2021 concerns a dwelling unit allotted under the Indian Railway Welfare Organization's Rail Vihar group housing scheme at Ambattur, Chennai. R. Venkataraman appealed after the Adjudicating Officer dismissed his compensation complaint on 11 March 2021.

The appellant sought compensation for delayed construction and possession, failure to provide the open car parking described in the brochure, and resulting mental agony. He had received an allotment for a Type B dwelling unit under an allotment letter dated 29 September 2006 and took possession of dwelling unit B-59 in January 2019.

Main arguments

R. Venkataraman argued that:

• The absence of a completion deadline in the brochure did not remove the Indian Railway Welfare Organization's responsibility to finish within a reasonable period.
• The project took about 13 years because of changes to plans, management failures and other delays.
• The brochure provided for open car parking for a Type B dwelling unit, but only two wheeler parking was provided.
• Requests to change to a Type C or Type D dwelling unit were not accepted, although he was willing to pay the increased amount.
• The delay and unsuccessful requests caused frustration and mental agony.

The Indian Railway Welfare Organization responded that:

• Delays were explained periodically to allottees.
• Allottees were offered withdrawal with refund of the amount paid and interest through letters dated 8 October 2009, 4 September 2013, 22 January 2015 and 23 November 2016.
• The appellant did not use that option and continued with the scheme.
• Planning issues, arbitration, court cases, changes to the project phases and contractors abandoning work contributed to the delay.

Tribunal's consideration

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded that the project was completed after an abnormal delay. It also recorded that the Indian Railway Welfare Organization admitted both delayed possession and non-allotment of car parking, while attributing them to administrative delays and planning changes required by the approving authority.

The Tribunal began examining whether the reasons for delay were acceptable, including difficulties with planning approval, pollution concerns, revised layouts, road status, arbitration and later project changes. The supplied text stops during that examination, so it does not show whether the appeal was ultimately allowed or dismissed, or whether compensation was awarded.