Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is an allotee of house no.182, situated at Dattagalli, “I” Block, as per his application filed on 12-5-92 under “Own your house scheme”. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, seeking direction to the O.P. – MUDA to issue title deed, and also award damages on the ground of deficiency in service. It is the simple case of the complainant that he is not liable to pay any amount to the O.P., but he is entitled to receive the title deed.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was duly served on the O.P., who appeared and contested the case by filing version, and affidavit. Learned counsel for the O.P. has produced the original file of allotment. Heard the learned counsels for both sides.<br /> <br /> 3. Undisputed facts, which are briefly summarized as under:-<br /> <br /> Complainant filed an application for allotment of a house under “Own your house scheme”. There is no dispute that the provisional cost of such house was fixed at Rs.1,75,000/-. There is also no dispute that complainant has paid the following amounts during the year 1992-93.<br /> <br /> (a) Rs. 17,500/- dated 12-5-92.<br /> (b) Rs. 40,834/- dated 27-7-93.<br /> (c) Rs. 29,166/- dated 20-12-93, total Rs.87,500/-.<br /> <br /> 4. There is also no dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.87,457/- on 17-3-95. The total amount paid comes to Rs.1,74,957/-. It is the case of complainant that provisional cost fixed by the O.P. at Rs.1,75,000/-, which was paid in full. Hence, he is entitled to receive title deed from the O.P. without paying any additional amount. It is also contended that complainant applied for the title deed, but O.P. has issued a notice demanding an amount of Rs.92,600/- towards principle amount, and Rs.1,21,822/- towards the past interest. The O.P. has demanded total amount of Rs.2,14,282/- by notice dated 20-11-04. As there was delay in delivery of possession, the complainant is not liable to pay such amount, and prayed for allowing this complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the simple contention of the O.P. that the provisional price was fixed at Rs.1,75,000/- subject to condition that amount should be paid from time to time in four installments. The complainant has failed to pay such installment in time. As per agreement, the O.P. is entitled to recover the amount due with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. It is further contended that the complainant has agreed to pay the balance amount, after fixing the final price of the house, within a period of 30 days from the date of demand. The final price was fixed at Rs.2,67,600/- on 10-3-97. In spite of repeated notices, the complainant has neither paid the balance amount nor paid interest there on. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., and complainant is not entitled to seek title deed, without paying such amount. It is also contended by the O.P. that the complainant filed an application before the O.P. on 20-07-95 stating that he is ready and willing to pay the final price to be fixed by the O.P., and took possession on 12-3-96. In view of such act of the complainant, he is not entitled to seek any relief.<br /> <br /> 6. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the legality of the notice dated 20-11-04, or earlier notice of demand, claiming the balance amount towards the final price fixed by O.P., and interest there on?<br /> 2. Whether complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point no.1 and 2 : Negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1 :- The complainant has not produced the letter of allotment or copy of the same to show the terms and conditions of the such allotment. His contention is that the provisional cost of Rs.1,75,000/- is the “final cost” and he is not liable to pay any amount to the O.P. There is neither any document nor affidavit of the complainant to show that O.P. has agreed to give the house only for Rs.1,75,000/-.<br /> <br /> 9. O.P. has produced original file in which it is clearly mentioned in the letter of allotment dated 18-9-92 that an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- is fixed as “provisional price” (Aí¨Ýgá ¸æÇæ¿ááÙÜÛ ñÝñÝRÈPÜ ¸æÇæ ). The complainant has filed an affidavit dated 29-6-05, which was accompanied to the application, seeking possession of the house from the O.P. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:-<br /> <br /> ®Ü®ÜWæ ÊæáçÓÜãÃÜá ®ÜWÜÃݼÊÜ꩜ ±ÝŗPÝĨÜí¨Ü ¨ÜorWÜÚÛ I ŸvÝÊÜOæ¿áÈÉ ÓÜÌíñÜ ÊÜá®æ Öæãí© Áãàg®æ¿áÈÉ ÊÜá«ÜÂÊÜá ÊÜWÜì¨Ü ÊÜá®æ ÓÜíTæÂ@GíIi 182, C¨Ü®Üá° ±ÝŗPÝÃÜ¨Ü ÊÜáígãÃÝ£ ±ÜñÜÅ¨Ü ÓÜíTæÂ@ ®ÜíŸÃ… GDž² 179@Ë&109 ©®ÝíPÜ 18&9&92 ÃÜí¨Üá ÊÜáígãÃÜá ÊÜÞwPæãqr¨Üáª, C¨ÜÃÜ Aí¨Ýgá ¸æÇæ¿Þ¨Ü ÃÜã.1,75,000&00 WÜÙÜ®Üá° ±ÝŗPÝÃÜPæR ±ÝÊÜ£ ÊÜÞwÃÜáñæ¤à®æ. B¨ÜÃæ PÝ®Üã¯®Ü ±ÜÅPÝÃÜ ÊÜá®æ¿á Aí£ÊÜá ¸æÇæ ¯WÜ©¿ÞWܨæ ÖÝWÜã ±Ý|ì ÖÜ| ±ÝÊÜ£ ÊÜÞvܨæ C¨ÜªÈÉ ÊÜá®æ¿á ÓÝ̗à®ÜÊÜ®Üá° ¯àvÜÆá AÊÜPÝÍÜËÆÉ©ÃÜáÊÜâ¨ÜÄí¨Ü ®Ü®ÜWæ ÊÜáígãÃÝXÃÜáÊÜ ÊÜá®æ¿á ÓÝ̗à®Ü ¯àvÜÆá ñÜvÜÊÝWÜáÊÜâ¨Üá £Ú¨ÜáŸí©ÃÜáñܤ¨æ. B¨ÜÃæ ®Ü®ÜWæ ÓܨÜÄ ÊÜá®æ¿á ±ÜñÜÅ¨Ü AÊÜÍÜÂPÜñæ CÃÜáÊÜâ¨ÜÄí¨Ü, ±ÝŗPÝĨÜÈÉ Aí£ÊÜá ¸æÇæ ¯WÜ©¿ÞWÜáÊÜÊÃæWæ, ®Ü®Ü° ÓÜÌíñÜ gÊݸݪĿá ÊæáàÇæ ®Ü®ÜWæ ÓܨÜÄ ÊÜá®æ¿á ñÝñÝRÈPÜ ÓÝ̗à®Ü ±ÜñÜÅÊÜ®Üá° ¯àvܸæàPÝX PæãàÃÜáñæ¤à®æ.<br /> <br /> ÖÝWÜ㠮ܮÜWæ ÊÜáígãÃÝXÃÜáÊÜ ÊÜá®æ¿á Aí£ÊÜá ¸æÇæ ±ÝŗPÝÃÜ©í¨Ü ¯WÜ©¿ÞX C¨ÜÃÜ ¸æWÜY ÖæaÜácÊÜÄ ÖÜ| ®Ý®Üá ±ÝÊÜ£ ÊÜÞvܸæàPÝX Ÿí¨ÜÈÉ ÓܨÜÄ ÊæãŸÆWÜ®Üá° ®Ü®ÜWæ ±ÝŗPÝÃÜ©í¨Ü ®æãàqàÓÜá ¯àw¨Ü Jí¨Üá £íWÜÙæãÙÜWÝX Jí¨æà PÜí£®ÜÈÉ ±ÝŗPÝÃÜPæR ±ÝÊÜ£ ÊÜÞvÜÆá Ÿ¨Üœ®ÝXÃÜáñæ¤à®æ@ Ÿ¨ÜœÙÝXÃÜáñæ¤à®æ. ®Ý®Üá DWÜ ŸÃæ¨ÜáPæãqrÃÜáÊÜ ÊÜááaÜcÚPæWæ ñܲ³ ËÃÜá¨ÜœÊÝX ®Üvæ¨ÜÈÉ ±ÝŗPÝÃÜÊÜ⠮ܮÜWæ ÊÜáígãÃÜá ÊÜÞwÃÜáÊÜ ÊÜá®æ¿á®Üá° ÃܨÜáªWæãÚÓÜÆá ÖÝWÜ㠮ܯ°í¨Ü ±ÝŗPÝÃÜPæR BWÜáÊÜ ®Ü,rÊÜ®Üá° ±Üvæ¨ÜáPæãÙÜÛÆá ÖÜPÜáRÙÜÛÊÜÃÝXÃÜáñݤÃæ. (office is directed to kept a Xerox copy of the affidavit in this file).<br /> <br /> 10. It is clear from the above affidavit that complainant was aware of the fact that the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was fixed as provisional price, and final price would be fixed by the O.P. thereafter.<br /> <br /> 11. Unless, we quash the notice issued by the O.P. either on 20-11-04 or earlier dates, complainant will not be entitled for any relief. Now it is well settled law that “Pricing” can not be a subject matter of litigation before the Forum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bareilly Developmetn Authority Vs. Ajayapal Singh and others reported in AIR 1989 SC page 106, has observed that the relationship between the parties would be contractual in nature, and the petitioners could only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract. In the absence of any statutory obligation on the part of BDA in such contract, the “pricing” can not be questioned. This was followed in number of decisions by the Hon’ble National Commission, as well as MRTP. This Forum has no jurisdiction to quash the subsequent demand made by the O.P., and interest there on. Hence, we come conclusion that complainant can not question the legality of the demand before this Forum. So, point no.1 is answered in negative.<br /> <br /> 12. Point no.2:- Though, the complainant has made out a case that he has received notice dated 20-11-04 demanding principle amount of Rs.92,600/-, as well as interest of Rs.1,21,822/-, it is seen from the file of the O.P. that such price was fixed in the year 1997 (final price of Rs.2,67,600/-) and demand notices were issued to the complainant. A similar notices are available in the record dated 18-3-97 and 9-7-99 (keep copy of these notices in the file). In simple words, the complainant had knowledge about the enhanced price, as long as 1997 and he has kept quite till the year 2005 and filed this complaint only after receiving final notice dated 20-11-04. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and come to conclusion that complainant is not entitled to seek title deed, unless the balance amount is paid. So, point no.2 is answered in negative.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant shall pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to O.P.<br /> <br /> 3. Return the original file to the learned counsel for O.P.<br /> <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />