PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of August 2012
Filed on : 12/07/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 368/2011
Between
George Stephen P.S., : Complainant
Parakkal house, (Party-in-person)
Pukkattupady, Edathala P.O.,
Ernakulam-683 561.
And
G.C.D.A. Visala Kochi Vikasana : Opposite party
Authority, Kochi-20. (By Adv. KKM Sheriff, M/s. Sheriff
Associates, 41/318-c, Kolliyil
Buildings, Near Mullassery
Canal, Chittoor road,
Kochi-682-011)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The facts of the case leading to the complaint are as follows:
The complainant applied for an allotment for a residential building of the project of the opposite party at a total price of Rs.2,65,000/-. The opposite party allotted a residential building under III/7 model category. Accordingly the complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- in advance. The balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid in 150 instalments with interest @16% p.a. as per order of the opposite party dated 22-04-2005. The interest rate was reduced to 8% from 16%. On the basis of the above order the complainant was directed to remit Rs. 13,323/- as on 10-06-2008 to close the loan account. Accordingly the complainant remitted the entire loan amount. Thereafter the complainant requested the opposite party to execute the sale deed. At that juncture the opposite party directed the complainant to remit Rs. 79,289/- to register the documents. The denial of reduction in interest from 16% to 8 % is highly objectionable and against the rule of law. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the excess amount of Rs. 79,289/- remitted by him as per the direction of the opposite party together with 14% interest. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,04,319/- with interest together with compensation.
2. The version of the opposite party.
The complainant had sanctioned 3.993 cents of land and the house having 43.51 sq.m. plinth area (Type III) bearing No. III/7 for an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- in advance. Remaining amount of Rs. 1,59,000/- was to be paid to the opposite party with 16% interest p.a. in 150 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 2,471/-. On 08-08-2003, the parties had entered into an agreement to that effect. Initially the opposite party decided an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as value of the type 3 houses. As per the decision dated 22-04-2005 the reduced interest rate will not be applicable to the houses which do not come under the reduced value. So the complainant is legally not entitled to get the reduced interest rate. Due to an inadvertent mistake a communication had been sent to the complainant that he was granted the reduced rate of interest benefit. Subsequently by letter dated 17-06-2009 issued to the complainant stating that the complainant is not entered to get the benefit. Later on 25-11-2009 the complainant remitted the entire amount and the title deed was registered in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties acted only in accordance with the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is void of merits and liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite party.
4. The points that came up for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a total amount of
Rs. 1,04,319/- from the opposite party?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation
from the opposite party?
5. Point No. i. The following facts are not disputed by the parties.
a. The complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement for sale on 08-08-2003 evidenced by Ext. B2.
b. At the outset the opposite party fixed the price for 3 type building at Rs. 3,50,000/-.
c. Later the opposite party decided to reduce the price from Rs.3.50,000/- to 2,65,000/-
d. As per Ext. B4 decision dated 22-04-2005 the opposite party decided to reduce the interest rate from 16% to 8%.
e. However the reduction of interest rate was applicable only for those who purchased the house for the initial price.
6. According to the complainant he is entitled to get the benefit of reduced interest. Admittedly at the outset the opposite party issued a letter to the complainant stating that the complainant is entitled to get benefit of the reduced rate of interest. However they rectified the same and intimated the complainant stating that he is not entitled to get benefit of the reduced rate of interest evidenced by Ext. B5 and accepted. The learned counsel for the opposite party relied on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goondla Venkateswarlu V. State of A.P and Another 2008 KHC 2002 S C which reads as follows:
22. “ “Good faith” according to the definition in General Clauses Act means a thing, which is in fact done honestly whether it is done negligently or not (See H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scinida Bahadur of Gwalior etc. V. Union of India and Another, 1971 (1) SCC 85)
23. Anything done with due care and attention which is not malafide is presumed to have been done in “good faith” (see Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishan Govind bhanu and Others, 1959 SCR 564”.
7. The goodwill shown by both the parties taken into consideration in law and in literal sprit as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case is defining the phrase ‘bona-fide’ speaks laurels to which this humble Forum bows.
8. In view of the above we are not to allow the complaint considering all magnanimity of law and consideration. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of August 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of notice
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 05-06-2008
A3 : Copy of order dt. 04-2011
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 31-12-2012
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 30-03-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 02-01-2012
B2 : Copy of agreement dt. 25/07/2003
B3 : Copy of order dt. 05-02-2003
A4 : Copy of order dt. 22/04/2;005
A5 : Copy of letter dt 17/06/2009
Depositions:
PW1 : George Stepen P.S.
DW1 : Amruthild R.
