By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of respondents. The husband of complainant had applied for a plot under Paravattani Housing Accommodation Scheme implemented by first respondent and plot No.PWB No.B6-46 was allotted to the husband of the complainant. An agreement dated 31.10.83 had been executed for the same. As per the agreement the cost of the plot, building and charges for the amenities were decided and also decided the amounts need to be paid by the consumer. The husband of complainant paid the entire amount to respondents. So the respondents are bound to execute sale deed in favour of complainant and her children. The husband of complainant had been died on 1992 January 18. The said plot should be sold in the name of complainant and her three children. It is made clear in the agreement that the 2nd respondent is liable to execute sale deed after acceptance of the entire amount. But it is not done. Meanwhile a demand notice dt. 9.5.05 had been accepted by the complainant to pay Rs.2,25,541/- towards balance land value and penal interest. It is stated that this amount became due and if the amount is not paid they will evict the complainant from the plot. Then the complainant submitted an objection to 3rd respondent but refused to accept the same. There is no amount due from the complainant. The demand notice is baseless and illegal. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of respondents-1 to 4 are that in 1981 the Board had framed a housing scheme called Paravattani Housing Accommodation Scheme. On 2.5.83 plot No.B6-46 had been temporarily allotted to Sri. C.A. Paul with conditions. Sri. C.A. Paul after accepting the conditions submitted an application to the Board on 31.5.03 and consequently the plot allotted for Rs.1,35,064.65 as a temporary price and allotted the building on 30.8.83 and decided Rs.68,689.65 as initial deposit and the balance should be paid by equal instalments for 96 months with 12.5% interest. After including all the conditions an agreement had been executed on 31.10.83. As per Clause 8 and 9 of the agreement if default committed the Board is entitled to impose 15% interest. It is incorrect that the complainant remitted the entire amount as per the karar and towards that account, Rs.809/- is only remaining due. The cost decided was tentative and provisional and the Board is bound to revise the amount and the allottees are liable to remit the same. Accordingly there was revision of cost because of the award of Courts and Tribunals. So demand notices were issued to the allottees. As per the karar on 31.5.05 an amount of Rs.2,25,541/- is due from this allottee. The demand notices were issued to the allottee and those notices were not accepted by the allottee and the complainant failed to intimate the death of her husband to the Board. The complainant is liable to pay the amount stated in the demand notice. If the amount is not paid the Board has right to evict her from the plot. The complainant and her children are not entitled to get execute sale deed since some more amounts are due from them. All the legal heirs of deceased Paul are not impleaded in the case and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There were LAR cases pending before the Courts and decree satisfaction certificate is not obtained so far. So the Board has fixed the final cost and the complainant should pay Rs.2,19,659.36. The averment in the complaint that the 3rd respondent received an objection from complainant is incorrect and denied. There was no deficiency in service from the respondents. Hence dismiss.`
3. The 5th respondent remained absent and set exparte.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Was there any deficiency in service from respondents?
(2) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(3) Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4, R1 to R6 and Ext. X-1. No oral evidence adduced by both.
6. Points: The complaint is filed against forcible eviction of complainant from the plot allotted to her husband by the Housing Board. It is the case of complainant that the respondents failed to execute sale deed to the plot allotted to her husband C.A. Paul after the payment of entire amount. The respondents-1 to 4 contested the case and stated that there is an amount of Rs.2,19,659.36 is due from complainant and as per the agreement the Board is entitled to revise the cost.
7. The initial cost decided was Rs.1,35,064.65 and except Rs.809/- the entire amount had been remitted by complainant. But the respondents stated that that amount was only an initial amount and as per the agreement the Board is entitled to revise the same. There was an agreement executed between the Board and the husband of complainant and it is marked as Ext. X-1. In Ext. X-1 it is clearly stated that whereas the land value, service charges for providing amenities fixed hereunder is purely tentative and provisional and is bound to be revised at later stage taking into account the enhanced compensation awarded by Courts and Tribunals, the costs incurred by the Board for prosecuting such proceedings in Courts and Tribunals and also the increased cost of development works and enmities undertaken with respect to the scheme. So as per the agreement the amount paid by complainant is not the final amount. So it is clear that the value and charges fixed were only tentative and provisional and not final. The Board shall be entitled to re-fix the final price of the land and service charges thereon taking into account the enhanced compensation awarded by the Courts and Tribunals. As per Clause 8 of the agreement the board is entitled to impose interest at the rate of 15% per annum as penal interest on default. So it is very well clear that the amount remitted was not the final amount and the amount demanded later should be paid by complainant.
8. The respondents produced the copy of demand notice issued to the husband of complainant. Ext. R3 is a copy of demand notice sent to the complainant demanding the amount and it is dated 2.1.03. In that document the prices are clearly stated. Ext. P3 is the copy of objection alleged to be given by complainant. It can be seen that it is dated 25.8.05. Even after Ext. P3, Ext. R4 was issued demanding the amount in which also the particulars are stated. According to the complainant she is not liable to pay these amounts because her husband had been remitted the entire amount. The complainant objected the marking of copy of demand notices by stating there is no evidence to show that those notices were sent to complainant. As per Ext. P3 it can be seen that the respondent has been sent a demand notice dated 9.8.05 and the complainant had been accepted the same and Ext. P3 objection had been submitted. So the objection of complainant that those documents were not sent is baseless and found incorrect.
9. The complainant is totally unaware of Ext. X-1. In Ext. P3 also there is no mentioning of Ext. X-1 agreement. She doesn’t know whether the husband had executed an agreement with the Board with such and such terms. Ext. X-1 is very clear about the revision of cost by Board and the allottees are liable to pay the same. The complainant did not step into the box to adduce oral evidence in support of her claim. There is seen nothing illegal to disbelieve the documents submitted by the Housing Board. It is submitted by the parties that one civil case was there and disposed. But both are not produced the copy of judgement before the Forum. There was no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and the complainant is liable to pay the amount.
10. The complainant filed an application to produce documents by respondents. As per I.A. Ext. X-1 karar has been produced and with regard to the other documents an affidavit was filed. The documents sought were not liable to be perused by this Forum since summary trial is envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act. If the complainant wants any elaborate evidence she can very well approach the Civil Court. It is stated that one case was pending before the Civil Court and it has been disposed. But as stated earlier no copy of the same has been produced. Ext. X-1 is very clear about the rights and liabilities of both the parties.
11. The respondents raised a contention with regard to the necessary parties in the complaint. They stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is true also. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant and three children are the legal heirs of deceased C.A. Paul. It is her prayer also that sale deed to be executed in favour of complainant and three other children. The children are not impleaded and definitely this is a mistake and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
12. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of November 2011.
