CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present

Sri. Bose Augustine, President

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 109/2012

Monday, the 16^th day of June, 2014

Petitioner                                              :           Joseph Chacko,

       F4-129/GHAS,

      Amalagiri P.O.

       Kottayam.

     (Adv. Kuruvilla Thomas)

             Vs.

Opposite Party                                    :           Kerala State Housing Board,

                                                                        Rep. by Executive Engineer,

                                                                        Kottayam Division,     

     Kanjikuzhy,  Kottayam.

                                                                        (Adv. K.R. Muraleedharan)

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Bose Augustine, President.

Points for determinations are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
2. Relief and cost?

Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit of complainant and Ext.A₁ to A₁₀ documents.

Point No.1

            The case of the petitioner is with respect to refund of the excess payment demanded and compelled to be paid by the complainant with respect to the plot purchased from the opposite party.  Petitioner produce the sale agreement executed between petitioner and opposite party and the same is marked as Ext.A₁.  As per the terms of Ext.A₁, the price fixed for the properly and building is provisional, since the prior owners of the land preferred LAR for increasing the compensation and was pending before the Court.  Opposite party demanded Rs.2,51,856/- from the petitioner to settle the LAR cases as per Ext.A₄ letter.  Petitioner remitted the amount as per Ext.A₅ receipt.  According to the petitioner on 1991 itself the LAR cases was disposed and the claim as per Ext.A₄ letter is illegal and not justifiable.  In our view, act of opposite party in collecting excess amount of Rs.2,51,856/- the interest for the delayed payment by opposite party, amounts to deficiency in service.  In the lack of contra evidence, we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit and the documents filed by the petitioner.  So Point No.1 is find accordingly.

Point No,2

            In view of the findings in Point No.1, petition is allowed.      

In the result;

            1) Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.2,51,856/- with 12% interest from 28/11/2008, till realization, to the petitioner.

            2) Since interest is allowed, no separate compensation is allowed.

            3) Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.4,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner.

            Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order.

Sri. Bose Augustine, President              Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member                       Sd/-

Documents from the side of petitioner

Ext.A1:     Agreement for sale of property and building 23/12/1991.

Ext.A2:     Receipt from Indian Bank dtd. 20/12/1991

Ext.A3:     Receipt from Indian Bank dtd. 20/12/1991

Ext.A4:     Notice from KSHB, Kottayam dtd. 04/11/2008.

Ext.A5 :    Receipt from KSHB dtd. 28/11/2008.

Ext.A6 :    Copy of the sale deed dtd. 18/03/2009.

Ext.A7:     Copy of sale deed dtd. 30/08/2010

Ext.A8:     Copy of sale deed dtd. 12/11/2008.

Ext.A9 :    Copy of judgment  order (OP 38/2004) dtd. 09/02/2007

Ext.A10:   Copy of judgment order WA No.2481 dtd. 18/02/2010.

                                                                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                                                           Senior Superintendent