Petitioner Housing Board was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Petitioner, the respondent, complainant got himself registered for allotment of a MIG twin house or MIG raw house on 27.06.1978.  He deposited a sum of Rs.6,500/- on 23.12.1978.  According to the complainant, he was under the belief that the flat would be ready within a year or two.  He was informed that the tentative cost of the flat was Rs.1,25,000/-.  He was required to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- as earnest and Rs.19,000/- towards security money, etc.,  Executive Engineer directed Assistant Engineer of Circle no.1 to handover the possession to the complainant and when the complainant reached the site with him, he found that only a 4 storeyed building was constructed and there was no ladder and no electrical fittings.  Meanwhile, complainant continued to pay the monthly instalment of Rs.1287/- till December 1989 but the construction of the house was not completed.  Finding that the construction had not been completed, complainant stopped paying the instalments from December 1989 onwards.  Complainant filed CWJC 1484 of 1990 before the High Court of Patna and as per order of High Court, petitioner / opposite party constructed the flats and 15 flats of the block were not completed.  Complainant took possession of the incomplete flat on 15.07.93.  Thus, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          The District Forum directed the petitioners to take back the possession of the flat allotted and return Rs.25,300/- with interest @8% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of return on the condition that the complainant would pay either the instalment due or the rent @Rs.1200/- per month whichever is less with 8% interest from the date of taking the possession till the date of payment.  Further, complainant was not held liable to pay escalated price as demanded by the petitioner.  Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeals with the modification that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs.1,12,783/- in lump sum to the petitioner Housing Board towards the remaining cost with the clear stipulation that the Housing Board will not make any type of claim besides the above mentioned amount towards the price of the flat.

          It is not disputed before us that the possession was handed over to the respondent way back in the year 1993.  Further, it is also not disputed that another sum of Rs.1,68,504/- towards the cost of the flat was demanded on 25.11.88 which included the interest from 23.12.78 on the basis of agreement.  As mentioned above, the possession has already been given.  The only point remains to be decided is as to how much balance amount has to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner.  Admittedly, respondent had paid a sum of Rs.6,500/- towards earnest money on 23.12.1978.  He had paid another sum of Rs.19,000/- on 13.10.1988.  He also deposited 12 monthly instalments of Rs.1,247/- from Jan. 1989 to December 1989 which comes to Rs.14,964/-.  In pursuance of the directions issued by the State Commission, the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.1,12,783/-.  In all, the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.1,53,247/- against the demand of Rs.1,26,500/-.  Petitioner has demanded interest from 1988 whereas possession was handed over to the respondent in 1993. 

          Since the dispute is going on since 1978, to give a decent burial to the litigation, we direct the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,000/- in lump sum to the petitioner Housing Board, in addition to sum of Rs.1,53,247/- already paid.  With this modification, the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.

          The respondent is directed to deposit the above-mentioned amount within 6 weeks failing which he will pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order till the date of deposit.