BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.213-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 10^th June 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to execute title deed in respect of the schedule property by holding that the additional escalation charges demanded as per letter dated 18.11.2014 is arbitrary, unreasonable and baseless and also for damages of `1,00,000/- with costs of the proceedings.
2.     The briefs facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant was allotted a house bearing No.239, LIG-2, Hebbal 1^st Stage, Mysuru City under Ashamandira Scheme.  Subsequently on 11.07.1995 opposite party handed over the possession in favour of the complainant only after payment of the entire amount in 1992.  From 11.07.1995, the complainant has been in possession of the property.  Price fixed for the house was `30,000/-. Subsequently opposite party charged additional sum of `16,700/-.  Thereafter, illegally demanding escalation charges by issuing notice which is illegal.  On 18.12.2014, opposite party threatened and issued a notice to pay a sum of `1,20,739/-.  Thereby, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, this complaint filed.  Cause of the complaint arose on 18.12.2014 and opposite party made illegal and unreasonable demand of `1,20,739/- in Mysuru City within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
3.     The opposite party appeared and filed detailed version.  It is admitted that the complainant was allotted with a house bearing No.239, LIG-2, Hebbal 1^st Stage, Mysuru City.  The price fixed was `30,000/- and subsequently an amount of `16,700/- was collected from the complainant and it was not a final price and it is only temporary amount. Thereby, false allegations are made against this opposite party without paying the escalation charges.  Thereby, the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant has pay the escalation charges and to get the title deed.  As such, the opposite party has sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     On the above contentions, this case is set down for evidence.  On behalf of complainant, affidavit evidence was filed along with documents.  Likewise, opposite party also filed affidavit evidence and submitted documents.  Further evidence closed.  After hearing both sides, this matter is set down for orders.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that the opposite party is demanding illegal escalation charges and not executed the sale deed, thereby there is deficiency in service, as such the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- During evidence, the complainant to establish his contention, filed affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  It is not in dispute that the complainant was allotted a house bearing No.239, LIG-2, Hebbal 1^st Stage, Mysuru.  It is also not in dispute as per the demand notices/endorsement issued by opposite party dated 19.09.1992 and additional amount of `16,700/- was paid by the complainant.  Thereby, the opposite party received `30,000/- + `16,700/- and total `46,700/-.  Under this endorsement, it is stated “ºÁ° ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀAw£À ¨É¯É gÀÆ.46,700/-UÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.” So admittedly the price fixed was only `30,000/- and the opposite party has collected additional amount of `16,700/- as far back as in 1992 itself, that amount has been paid by the complainant and there is no dispute regarding the payment of this amount in instalments, as per the letter issued by Accounts Officer, University of Mysuru on 11.02.1997.  So leaving of this correspondence, the opposite party has started demanding more amount from 03.09.2011, 04.08.2012, 20.03.2014 and 18.11.2014. In the letter dated 04.08.2012 an amount of `1,00,537/- was demanded, whereas in a subsequent letter dated 20.03.2014 an amount of `94,493/- was demanded and in 18.11.2014, the amount of `1,20,739/- was demand.  So it is clear from these letters that the opposite party is not definite or sure about the balance amount to be paid by the complainant.  It is not the case of the opposite party that subsequent to 2011-12 any amount was paid by the complainant.  If such being the case how can the amount be reduced in 2014 for `94,493/- and subsequently it enhanced upto `1,20,739/- is unexplained by the opposite party.  The counsel representing the opposite party submits that as per condition No.5 after completion of 14 years from the date of possession, the allottee has to pay the amount fixed and also the changes if any in the rate, but such clause will not come to the aid of opposite party in view of letter dated 19.09.1992.  In this letter, final price is shown as `46,700/-.  In the circumstances, the demand made by the opposite party for excess payment amounts to deficiency in service, withholding of issuance of title deed also deficiency in service.  Thereby, the complainant establishes point No.1 for consideration. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the partly in the affirmative.
8.    Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the opposite party has to execute the title deed in respect of the schedule property.  Further opposite party is liable to pay compensation/damages for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with costs of this proceedings.  Hence, the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to execute the title deed in respect of the schedule property within 45 days from the date of this order.  Failing which, opposite party has to pay penalty of `100/- per day from the date of default till compliance is made.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of `10,000/- towards compensation/damages and `2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings, within 45 days of this order.
4.  In default to comply, the opposite party shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total sum of `12,000/- from the date of this order until compliance is made.
5. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 10^th June 2016)