BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

C.C. No. 396/2012 Filed on 05.11.2012

Dated : 15.06.2013

Complainant :

Dr. S. Suman, W/o Girish Babu, residing at Flat No. 16-B, P.T.P. Nagar, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 038.

(By adv. P.A. Ahamed)

Opposite parties :

1. Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001 represented by its Secretary.

    

2. Regional Engineer, Trivandrum Housing Unit, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

This O.P having been heard on 25.05.2013, the Forum on 15.06.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that in 1991, the complainant was allotted a flat by the opposite parties under a scheme known as PTP Nagar Housing Scheme for a tentative cost of Rs.1,65,476/-, that as per conditions of allotment the opposite parties fixed an installment schedule by which complainant was to remit the price in equal monthly installments, that only after the same would the opposite parties execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant, that the terms and conditions also stipulate that the opposite parties can revise this tentative cost only in case of additional improvements made or enhancement of cost due to disposal of land acquisition reference, if any, that an amount of Rs. 77,917/- which was initially deposited as security by the complainant was adjusted towards this amount and a balance of Rs. 87,559/- was to be paid in monthly installments, that after the payment of the last installment complainant was requesting the opposite parties to execute the sale deed at the earliest, but opposite parties were lethargic in executing the same, that fed up with the total inaction and lethargy on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant and similarly situated persons, had threatened legal action, if the opposite parties do not execute the sale deeds, that following the same complainant was served with a demand notice by the 2^nd opposite party calling upon the complainant to pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,53,252/- being the balance amount towards the opposite party, that the same was stated to be the difference between the tentative value and the final value, that complainant was directed to remit the said amount or face eviction, that due to the continuous threat of eviction and harassment by the opposite parties, complainant remitted the entire amount under protest in 2008 itself. It is submitted by the complainant that there was no occasion for the opposite parties to remit any amount to anyone on account of any land acquisition cases as stated therein, that opposite parties have malafidely squeezed money from the complainant in the aftermath of the complainant threatening legal action, if the sale deed was not executed. Finally the sale deed was executed on 27.02.2009, that after the said execution, complainant wrote to the opposite parties demanding details as to which under which court order and the details of calculation regarding how the complainant was saddled with the responsibility of paying Rs. 1,53,252/- and if it is not substantiated by any document to refund the same. Opposite party sent a reply denying their liability. Hence this complaint.

The opposite parties, on being served, not entered appearance and nor filed their version and hence ordered to be proceeded exparte.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs prayed for?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts.P1 to P4.

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant's evidence consists of oral testimony of the complainant and Exts. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the copy of the agreement for sale of the property and the apartment dated 07.01.1991. As per Ext. P1 the cost of the land and price of the flat constructed upon the property is tentatively fixed at Rs. 1,65,476/-, that Rs. 77,917/- deposited with the Board as security has been adjusted towards the price of the apartment land, services charges, after which adjustment a sum of Rs. 87,559/- remains payable as the outstanding balance of price of the apartment land and services charges, that the balance amount of Rs. 87,559/- shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 1,279/- per month over a period of 156 months from the month of January 1991. It is further stated in Ext. P1 that Kerala State Housing Board shall be entitled to refix the final price of the land and service charges thereon taking into account interalia the enhanced compensation awarded by courts and Tribunals. The cost incurred by the Board or/and its predecessor in interest for prosecuting such proceeding in courts and tribunals and also the increased cost of development works and amenities undertaken with respect to the scheme after a final settlement of accounts in connection therewith. The very case of the complainant is that though there was no occasion on the part of the opposite parties to remit any amount on account of any land acquisition cases, complainant was served with a demand notice to pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,53,252/- being the balance amount towards the opposite party. The same was stated to be the difference between the tentative value and the final value. It has been contended by the complainant that it was due to the continuous threat of eviction and harassment by the opposite party, complainant had remitted the said additional amount under protest. According to complainant, opposite parties have malafidely squeezed money from the complainant in the aftermath of the complainant threatening legal action if the sale deed was not executed. Ext. P2 is the copy of the original receipt dated 20.08.2008 for Rs. 1,24,000/- and Ext. P3 is the copy of the receipt dated 31.10.2008 for Rs. 29,252/- issued by opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext. P4 is the copy of the sale deed dated 27.02.2009. In her affidavit in lieu of chief examination it is seen deposed by the complainant that after the execution of sale deed by Ext. P4 complainant wrote to opposite parties demanding calculations from opposite parties regarding the additional amount of Rs. 1,53,252/- claimed by opposite parties and opposite parties stated that they would reply soon to the queries of the complainant. Complainant has not furnished the copy of the said letter to the opposite parties nor has complainant mentioned the date of the said letter in the complaint or affidavit. Further complainant has not furnished the passbook issued by the opposite party to show the remittance details as per Ext. P1. There is no material on record to show the date of remittance of the last installment. The onus is on the part of the complainant to show that she diligently remitted each and every installment in time. Complainant has not furnished the demand notice issued by the opposite party calling upon her to pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,53,252/-. Admittedly, complainant remitted the said amount by Exts. P2 and P3. There is nothing on record to show that the said amount was remitted under protest. Further it is to be noted from Exts. P2 and P3 receipts that the aforesaid additional amount seen remitted by two installments on 20.10.2008 and on 31.10.2008 and following the same Ext. P4 sale deed was executed on 27.02.2009. This complaint was filed on 05.11.2012, that is after a lapse of 4 years from the date of remittance of additional amount. Apparently the claim for refund of Rs. 1,53,252/- remitted by Exts. P2 and P3 is barred by limitation. Further on remittance of the said demanded amount, opposite party had executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant on 27.02.2009. Complainant had accepted the same, to the extent of which, I do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It has been contended by the complainant that though the sale deed was executed on 27.02.2009, till date opposite parties have not issued the NOC so as to effect mutation in the tax assessment register of the corporation and change water connection and electricity connection to the name of the complainant. Opposite parties are bound to issue the NOC. Non-issuance of NOC to complainant even after execution of sale deed smacks malafides to the extent of which I find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant is entitled to get NOC.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are directed to issue NOC to complainant so as to effect mutation in the Tax Assessment Register of the Corporation and change water connection and electricity connection to the name of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to compensation and costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of June 2013.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD, President.

jb

C.C. No. 396/2012

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the agreement for sale of the property and apartment

dated 07.01.1991

P2 - Copy of original receipt dated 20.08.2008 for Rs. 1,24,000/-.

P3 - Copy of receipt dated 31.10.2008 for Rs. 29,252/- issued by

opposite parties in the name of complainant.

P4 - Copy of sale deed dated 27.02.2009

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb