KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.326/13
JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2014
(Against the order in CC No.208/11 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod, dated 29/10/12)
PRESENT
SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Thiruvananthapuram-695001
2. The Administrative Officer,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Chakikorathukulam,
Kozhikode APPELLANTS
3. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Kasargod Division,
Nullipadi, Kasargod
4. The Assistant Secretary,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Nullipadi, Kasargod
(By Adv. Sri. Meena C.R)
V/s.
P. Ramachandran,
S/o. Meloth Narayanan Nambiar
(Late), EF8(a) 206, 3rd Block,
KSEB Muttathodi, RESPONDENT
Sccomodation scheme,
Vidhanagar,
Muttathodi P.O., Kasargod
(By Adv. Sri.C. Mohanan)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
The opposite parties in CC No.208/11 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod are the appellants herein, who are aggrieved by the direction of the Forum to execute the sale deed in respect of flat E F 8 (a) 206 in favour of the complainant without collecting any additional amount within two months from the date of receipt of the order and cancelling the demand notice of Rs.1,89,718/- as per Ext. A(6) with future interest and penal interest.
2. The case of the complainant in the above CC is as follows. Opposite parties are claiming an additional cost of Rs.1,89,718/- vide demand notice dated 3/3/2011, alleging to be the outstanding dues (i.e. difference in cost) for the allotment of flat. Subsequent to the claim the opposite party is refusing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat allotted. The flat in dispute was allotted for a tentative price of Rs.2,41,000/- on 8/4/1992. He was asked to remit Rs.96,400/- as initial amount by way of final allottment letter which shows the cost of flat as Rs.2,53,053/- which is in excess of Rs.12,053/- Out of Rs. 98,000/- remitted by the complainant Rs.97,021/- was adjusted to the value and balance was remitted in 162 monthly instalments of Rs.2,410/- with interest of 15.5%. Possession was handed over on 2/12/12 consequent of an agreement, in which the interest was enhanced to 16.5.%. On 6/11/1999 2nd opposite party demanced Rs.3,74,477/- as Rs.1,21,424/- was the additional cost. For which the complaiant sent a reply stating that the opposite parties are not entitled to askfor additional amount. Later on 3/3/11 the 4th opposite party sent another notice demanding Rs.1,89,718/- towards the outstanding dues. Hence this complaint for setting aside the demand and to direct the opposite party to execute the sale deed in respect of the Flat No. EF 8 (a) 206 with compensation and cost.
3. The opposite parties filed version contenting that they are entitled to refix the final price taking into account the cost of development works and amenities undertaken. There were no land acquisition cases. The difference in cost is based on the actual expenditure incured by the board and is the difference between final cost and tentative cost. Notice dated 6/11/99 mentioned Rs.1,21,424/- including interest of Rs.63,548/- as on 31/7/1999. They would have been issued the sale deed, if paid the due as per notice. The amount was hiked to Rs.1,89,718/- as on 3/3/2011 as it was not in time. The development works are done by the board itself. The board has approved the final cost on 16/4/98 only. The final cost is fixed by the board based on actual expenditure whereas the tentative cost is fixed based on estimated and anticipated expenditure. Instead of paying the complainant sent a lawyer notice challenging the demand.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext. A1 to A8 were marked. Ext. B1 – B4 were marked by the opposite parties. Heard both sides. Hence the Forum turned down the claim as unsustainable on the basis of facts and circumstances and based on the earlier findings of the Commission in identical cases. Hence Forum Below directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the flat E F 8 (a) 206 in favour of the complainant without collecting any additional amount. Aggrieved by the said order of the Forum, opposite parties preferred this appeal.
5. In the appeal memorandum the appellants emphasised clause No. 9 of the agreement dated 26/11/1992. They asserts that they are entitled to refix the final price taking into account the increased cost of development works and amenities undertaken and repeated the contentions in the Lower Forum. The price arrived on 19/06/1992 was purely tentative. The above was agreed by the complainant as per the agreement. The land value fixed at the time of allotment was only tentative. The appellant board finalised the individual accounts only in September, 1999. When intimated the same the complainant filed representation and that too was to avoide from effecting payment. The appellants is executing agreement for sale at tentative cost and will issue sale deed after finalisation of cost. They submitted that pricing never fall under the Consumer Protection Act and the validity of the agreement can be adjudicated only by a civil court.
6. Both counsels were heard. The counsel of the appellant was of the view that as per the agreement between parties herein Kerala State Housing Board is entitled to refix the cost of the flat after taking into consideration of the value of development works done and additional amenities undertaken. Accordingly they fixed the additional cost and demand therefore is legal. The appellants are entitled to refix the final cost and the complainant is liable to remit the difference of tentative cost and actual cost. They prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of the Lower Forum. On the other hand the Counsel of the respondent argued that the order of the Lower Forum is legal and justified especially in similar cases. The Hon. State Commission affirmed the position and confirmed orders of Lower Forum.
7. We have carefully examined the rival contentions. The appellants did not produce any piece of evidence or statement of any development works done and they have agreed that there was no LAR cases also. Whereas the deposition of PW1 includes that the development work done were by themself only. We find that the complainant was allotted flat No. EF 8(a) 206 as per Ext. A2 and payment of whole amount with interest is not disputed also. Secondly it is not seen that any additional works or amenities not carried out by the appellants from the records or arguments. It is very pertinant to note that the very same issues were considered earlier by this Commission and confirmed similar order of the Lower Forum as rightly observed by the Forum below. Considering all the above we are inclined not to interfere in the order of the Lower Forum.
In the result, we dismiss the appeal uphelding the order of the Lower Forum in CC 208/11 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod. Cancelling the Ext.A6 demand notice of appellants and directing the appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of the flat EF 8 (a) 206 in favour of the complainant/respondent without collecting any additional amount within two months from the date of receipt of this order. In the circumstances no order of cost.
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
nb
