Respondent (since deceased) is being represented through LRs.

          Rajasthan Housing Board, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant/respondent was allotted a house by the petitioner Housing Board and possession was delivered to him on 28.9.1992.  Respondent (now represented through LRs) asked the petitioner to indicate the Final Price which

-2-

was to be paid by him.  Final Price was conveyed and paid by him.  After paying the said amount, respondent/complainant applied for ‘No Due Certificate’.  At that stage, petitioner Housing Board asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.76,273/- in addition to the amount already paid.  Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the averment that once the respondent had deposited the required amount, then the petitioner could not demand money in excess thereto.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the complainant/respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order.  Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present Revision Petition.

          The State Commission has allowed the appeal by observing thus –

“in such circumstances and specially when the complainant appellant was asked earlier to deposit certain amount as Final Price and the same was deposited by him, if subsequent demand was raised for that the respondents should be held responsible and not the complainant appellant”.

-3-

          Petitioner in its affidavit filed before the District Forum had stated that while calculating the balance amount against the house of the complainant/respondent, a wrong factor of 0.375462 was applied and on recalculations, it was found that a wrong factor was applied.  The factor applied should have been 0.881815 as per the rules, by which the balance amount would have come to Rs.98,216.71 paise and accordingly, the respondent was informed and a demand note was issued for the balance amount against the installments and lease money; that as per rules, the non-applicant was entitled to recover Rs.76,273/- + 20% penalty.  Complainant/respondent did not refute the allegation made by the petitioner that there was a mistake in calculating the amount due.  Precisely for this reason, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.  The State Commission, only because a final price had been indicated, held that once the final price has been indicated, the petitioner Housing Board was not justified in demanding the additional sum of Rs.76,273/- with penalty of 20%.  Once a mistake has been committed, the petitioner was

-4-

justified in correcting that mistake and the petitioner was liable to make the payment as per recalculation made by the respondent.  Petitioner could have rectified its mistake which it did by demanding the additional amount.  Accordingly, we allow this revision petition and direct the respondent (through LRs) to pay a sum of Rs.71,000/- after setting off the penalty amount of approximately Rs.5,000/-. 

However, the petitioner is not entitled to recover penalty of 20% over and above the sum of Rs.71,000/-.  Respondents have been asked to pay the additional amount because of mistake of the petitioner and for this the respondents cannot be penalized.  Keeping in view the fact that the original complainant has died, we direct the respondents to pay the sum of Rs.71,000/- in six Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) starting from 1^st December, 2009 till 31^st May, 2010, but without any interest.

          In case, the installments are not paid, the respondents would be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the sum of Rs.71,000/- from the date of passing of the order till its payment. 

-5-

          On payment of the entire amount, the Rajasthan Housing Board, petitioner, is directed to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’.

          Revision petition is disposed of in above terms.

            On 04.3.2009, Ms. Meenakshi Midha was appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of the respondents.  No direction was given as to how much amount was to be paid to the Amicus.  Ms. Meenakshi Midha be paid Rs.3,000/- as out of pocket expenses from the ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account’.  We appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Meenakshi Midha. Amicus Curiae.