This is yet another case in which a consumer has suffered harassment due to inaction on the part of the Government functionaries. 2. This revision is directed against the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram dated 26.12.2013 in Appeal No.950/2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner- department against the order of the Consumer Forum, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.4.2012 in Consumer Complaint No.76/2009. 3. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum alleging that the respondent- complainant was allotted flat No .EF 7 (c) - 322 by the petitioner- Board on tentative price of Rs.1,29,612/- payable in monthly installments. The conveyance deed was to be executed after the payment of the entire consideration money. It is the case of the respondent- complainant that she diligently paid the EMIs to the petitioner- Board and despite of their having received payment by 1994, the petitioner- Board failed to execute the conveyance deed. Number of requests were made but no action to execute the conveyance deed was taken. Ultimately, the petitioner- opposite party served the complainant with a demand notice making additional demand of Rs.77,506/- claiming it to be difference between the tentative cost and final value fixed by the opposite party. Claiming the failure of the petitioner Board to execute the conveyance deed and to raise unjustified demand to be deficiency in service, respondent filed consumer complaint. 4. The petitioner- opposite party contested the complaint and it took the plea that as per the agreement, sum of Rs.1,29,612/- was the tentative cost and it was subject to increase in the event of enhancement of land acquisition compensation granted to the original land holders and development charges. Petitioner claimed that conveyance deed was to be executed only after the final payment and since the respondent-complainant has failed to pay the difference between the price ultimately fixed and the tentative price despite of the demand, the petitioner- Board was well within its right to decline to execute the conveyance deed. Thus, sum and substance of the plea of the petitioners is that there is no deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties as also the affidavit evidence, allowed the complaint with following directions: - n the result, complaint is allowed, Additional demand notice dated 17/03/2009 issued by the 2nd opposite party calling upon the complainant to pay an additional amount of Rs.77,506/- is cancelled. Opposite party shall execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order. In facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to compensation and cost. 6. The petitioner- Board not being satisfied with the order of the District Forum, preferred an appeal. His appeal, however, was dismissed vide the impugned order. 7. Learned Shri M.T. George, Advocate for the petitioners has contended that the orders of the Fora below are not sustainable for the reason that both the foras below have failed to appreciate the facts in correct perspective and they have misapplied the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. He has submitted that the demand for the increased price was only for the reason that the land acquisition compensation awarded to the original owners was ultimately increased by judicial order and the demand is in respect of the aforesaid enhancement with interest thereon. 8. There is no merit in the above contention. Undisputedly, the last instalment against the tentative consideration amount of the subject flat was paid by the respondent complainant in the year 1994. Despite that the petitioner Board kept on sleeping over the matter and failed to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the respondent complainant in terms of the agreement. Suddenly, almost 15 years after the date of payment of last instalment, the petitioner Board woke up and issued the notice dated 17.03.2009 calling upon the complainant to pay an additional demand of Rs.77,506/- which was stated to be the difference between the agreed tentative price and the final price, fixed after taking into account the enhancement of land acquisition composition awarded to the original land owners by Honle High Court of Kerala. Learned District Forum on appreciation of evidence did not find justification in the enhancement of the price of the subject flat for the reason that the petitioner Board had failed to lead any evidence that there were any land acquisition petitions pending in connection with the land on which the subject flat is constructed and also that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence to indicate that it was made to pay the enhanced compensation to the original owners in view of the order of the High Court. 9. The State Commission while dealing with the appeal has dealt with the issue pertaining to the enhancement of the compensation resulting in increased value of the subject flat as under: t is in this context the land acquisition cases become relevant. No document relating to the land acquisition case was produced before the District Forum. This was the main reason why the District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. As mentioned earlier during the pendency of the appeal the appellants produced several documents mainly relating to the land acquisition for this project along with application to receive the same. The complainant has strong objection in receiving the additional documents. As a matter of fact these documents were within the knowledge of the appellants and with due diligence they could have produced the same before the District Forum itself. So strictly there is no ground to admit the additional documents produced. However, even if these documents are accepted in evidence it is quite obvious that the land acquisition cases were finally decided as early as in 1992 and the payment ordered by the land acquisition court was effected as early as in March 1993 as one of the documents shows. It appears that there were five land acquisition cases relating to the acquisition made for the purpose of executing this project. Copies of most of the judgments of the land acquisition court are produced in appeal. It is seen that the last order was pronounced on 03.01.91. The order of the land acquisition court was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court by filing land acquisition appeals. The documents produced by the appellants show that the land acquisition appeals were finally decided last by 15.07.92 and as mentioned the District Collector ordered the payment of compensation accordingly by 05.03.93. It is surprising that the appellants took around 16 years to fix the final cost of acquisition. So based on the contention of the appellants themselves only a little amount remained to be paid in 1994 when the due date for the payment of the last instalment ended. Obviously, the construction was completed before that period. According to the appellants the amount spent for electrification and flooring is not included in the final cost calculated by them. Really, there is nothing to support this contention. Even if this contention is accepted the fact remains that after the expiry of the due date for payment of the last instalment the appellants took nearly 16 years to issue Ext.P6 notice of demand. This delay by no standards is reasonable and is clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. There is nothing to explain the delay apart from the lethargy of the officers of the appellants for which they are answerable. The appellants can not indefinitely delay fixing of the final cost of acquisition and construction and go on claiming interest for the amount due from the respondent / complainant. In the light of this clear deficiency in service we find no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. 10. On careful perusal of record, we do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the view taken by the State Commission which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction flowing from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly the order for enhancement of land acquisition compensation, which is the basis of the increase in the price of the flat, was passed in July, 1992 and the District Collector ordered the payment accordingly by 5th July, 1993. There is no explanation that despite of that why the petitioner Board failed to fix the final price of the flat. It is also clear from the record that last installment was paid by the respondent in1994 and till that time there was no increase in the price and the balance payment against the price was shown to be nil in the passbook of the respondent. Despite that the petitioner Board failed to execute conveyance deed in favour of the respondent for almost 15 years. This in itself amounts to deficiency in service. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner took more than 1 decade to fix the final price of the flat. If at all it is assumed that the petitioner was entitled to seek compensation on account of the increase in compensation awarded to the original land owners then also because of the inordinate delay of more than 1 decade in demanding the said increase, the right to recover the enhanced price has become barred by limitation and laches. Thus, under the circumstances, we are of the view that State Commission has rightly held that the petitioner cannot claim the enhanced price after such a long delay which has not been explained either in the written statement filed to the consumer complaint or in the ground of appeal / revision. 11. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the fora below. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/. The petitioner Board shall be at liberty to conduct departmental inquiry to fix the responsibility for inordinate delay in fixing the price of the subject flat and recover the loss from the salary from the official / officer found responsible.