This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Kerela dated 14.02.2014 in Appeal No. 326/2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum in CC No. 208/2011. 2. Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent complainant applied for allotment of flat in housing scheme floated by the petitioner Housing Board. The respondent was provisionally allotted flat No.E F 8 (a) 206 on 08.04.1992. As per the allotment letter, the tentative price of the flat was 2,41,000/- which was subject to revision on ultimate accounting. In terms of allotment letter, the respondent paid Rs.96,400/- against the consideration amount and balance amount was to be paid in 162 monthly instalments of Rs.2410/-. It is the case of the respondent complainant that the possession of the flat was handed over to him on 02.12.2012. However, on 06.11.1999, the petitioner Board issued a notice to the complainant calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,424/- against balance consideration amount being the difference between the tentative price declared at the time of allotment and the final price fixed after accounting. It is further alleged that the petitioner Board made payment of aforesaid amount as pre condition to executing the Sale deed in favour of the respondent. According to the respondent complainant, the aforesaid demand for the enhanced price is arbitrary and unjustified which amounts to unfair trade practice. On the above allegations, consumer complaint was filed. The petitioner opposite party in his written statement alleged that as per the agreement arrived at between the parties, final price was to be fixed after taking into account the cost of development work and the amenities provided and other factors. It was pleaded that the demand raised is based upon actual expenditure incurred by the board and is justified. 3. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence did not find merit in defence put forth by the petitioner and allowed the complaint. Operative part of the District Forum reads as under: In view of the above we hold that the claim of the opposite parties as per Ex.A6 demand notice i.e. Rs.1,89,718/- with future interest and penal interest is unsustainable and baseless. The said demand notice is therefore cancelled. The opposite parties are further directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the flat EF 8(a) 206 in favour of the complainant without collecting any additional amount. However, the claim of the complainant for compensation and costs are declined. Time of compliance of this order is 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the State Commission Kerala vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the orders of the foras below are not sustainable for the reasons that the orders are against the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties which clearly stipulate that the price mentioned at the time of allotment of flat was a tentative price which was subject to revision on the basis of account of the expenditure incurred on development and completion of project. Learned counsel contended that demand of Rs.1,21,424/- is based upon the fixation of final price after accounting. Therefore, it cannot be termed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. 6. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look on the relevant clauses of the allotment agreement arrived at between the parties which are reproduced thus: “4. the cost of the land and price of the flat constructed upon the property is tentatively fixed at R s.2,53,050/-. 6. The parties hereto agree that sum of Rs.97,021/- deposited with the Board as security has been adjusted towards the price of the apartment land, service charges mentioned above after which adjustment a sum of Rs.1,56,029 (Rupees one lakh fifty six thousand and twenty nine only) remains payable as the outstanding balance of price of the apartment land and service charges mentioned above. The balance sum of Rs.1,56,029/- shall be payable in 162 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.2410/- per each instalment over a period of 13 ½ years as from the month of NOVEMBER the first of which instalment shall be payable on 26.11.92 and succeeding instalment being payable on or before the 10th day of each and every succeeding month. 9. It is agreed that Kerala State Housing Board shall be entitled to refix the final price of the apartment charges thereon taking into account inter alia at the enhanced compensation awarded by Courts and Tribunals as per actual cost of construction. The cost incurred by the Board or/am its predecessor in interest for prosecuting such proceeding in Courts and Tribunals and also the increased cost of development works and amenities undertaken with respect to the scheme after a final settlement of accounts in connection therewith”. 7. On reading of the above clauses, it is clear that as per the agreement, tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.2,53,053/- against which sum of Rs.97,021/- was to be deposited as security to be adjusted against the price and balance tentative price was to be paid in 162 equal instalments. It is not disputed that aforesaid terms have been complied by the respondent. 8. Clause 9 of the agreement reproduced above does authorize the petitioner Board to refix the final price. However, on careful reading of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that final price is to be refixed after final settlement of account in connection with cost of construction, development work and amenities etc as also the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Courts, if any. It is clear from clause (9) that refixation of price cannot be arbitrary and it has to be justified. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us the final account which may justify the enhancement of price of flat in question. In absence of any evidence to that effect, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders of the fora below holding the demand of Rs.1,89,718/- raised by the petitioner as per demand notice Ex.A6 unjustified and directing the petitioner to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant without insisting for any additional payment. 9. In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition and is accordingly dismissed. | 
