JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainants applied for allotment of a residential flat in ‘Srishti Apartments’ which the respondent Lucknow Development Authority was to construct in Sector-J Extension, Jankipuram, Kursi Road, Lucknow, paying the booking amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. Thereafter, further payments were made by the complainants from time to time, including payment of Rs.5,07,688/- made on 12.8.2014 and payment of Rs.26,000/- made on 04.9.2015. However, the possession of the flat was not given to them and an additional demand of Rs.3,47,374/- as penal interest was raised. 2. Being aggrieved the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, after depositing a sum of Rs.26,000/- before the respondent Board on 04.9.2015. In the meanwhile, they had received a demand notice dated 4,1,2016, demanding a sum of Rs.3,78,252/- in one time settlement of the issue, in terms of the settlement application filed by the complainants. 3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent, which filed a reply stating therein that after payment of initial deposit of Rs.2,10,000/- on 30.6.2010, the complainants were required to pay the balance amount in six installments of Rs.2,53,834/- each on 30.9.2010, 31.12.2010, 31.3.2011, 30.6.2011, 30.9.2011 and 31.12.2011. It was also stated in the written version that as per the allotment letter, the final price of the flat was to be worked out after completion of the construction work and the difference was required to be paid by the complainants. It was further stated in the written version that the complainants got registered under a Onetime Settlement Scheme on 04.9.2015 and therefore, a Statement of Dues was prepared under the said scheme, where under first installment of Rs.1,89,126/- was payable by the complainants on 28.1.2016 followed by second installment of the same amount on 27.2.2016. Since the aforesaid payment was not made by the complainants, notice was sent to them on 07.6.2016. 4. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 13.7.2017 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainants are before this Commission by way of this Appeal. 5. It is not in dispute that the price of the flat mentioned in the Brochure was only an estimated price and not the final price. After increase to the extent of 5% an amount of Rs.19,43,000/- was payable by the complainants in six installments of Rs.2,53,834/- each payable on 30.9.2010, 31.12.2010, 31.3.2011, 30.6.2011, 30.9.2011 and 31.12.2011. The complainants paid installments payable upto 31.3.2011 but did not pay the remaining installments in time. As a result, the respondents became entitled to charge interest as per the agreement between the parties. Therefore, the demand for payment of interest was fully justified. 6. It is also not in dispute that the complainants applied for one time settlement, depositing a sum of Rs.26,000/- under the Onetime Settlement Scheme. A statement was thereafter prepared by the respondents working out the amount payable by the complainants at Rs.3,78,252/- payable in two installments of Rs.1,89,126/- each. Having applied under the Onetime Settlement Scheme, the complainants are bound to make payment in terms of the said scheme. 7. Even if the benefit of one time settlement is not availed by the complainants in terms of onetime settlement scheme, they are still liable to pay the amount demanded by the respondents, they having delayed payment of atleast three installments. The order passed by the State Commission therefore, is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. |
