1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.158 of 2015, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was allowed. The operative portion of impugned Order dated 29.11.2018 is reproduced as below:

“The above description shows that the amount due on the Complainant as on 30.12.2017 was Rs.6,89,081/- and the opposite party has neither denied that the Complainant has paid the same nor has adduced any affidavit that the calculation was wrong.

As far as the questions of costs of flats is concerned? It is the work of the opposite party to determine the cost of the flat. And in this regard, the whole and sole authority is of opposite party. The Consumer Commission cannot interfere in the matter of the cost of the flat. This is the propounded principle of law. As such, it found that the complainant has not paid the full amount of the opposite party’s flat, when the complainant deposits entire amount, he becomes entitled to obtain the possession and for the registration of the flat.

In these circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed, and the passing the following orders is justifiable.

ORDER

The opposite party will issue a revised demand notice of amount due till 31.12.2018, Within 20 days. As per the revised demand notice, the complainant will deposit the amount within a period of a one month. The Opposite party within a month of receiving the amount, will hand over the possession of the flat, along with all facilities of parking, etc., will bear their respective costs.”                                                                                                    (Extracted from translated copy)

2.      Being aggrieved by alleged miscalculation of amount deposited by the Complainant and wrong levy of interest on delayed period, he (Appellant herein) filed the instant Appeal seeking the following:-

a) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 29.11.2018 upon the extent of directing the Opposite party to issue a demand notice to the Complainant and directing Complainant to pay as per the issued demand notice;

b) Allow the complaint filed by the Appellant /Complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission numbered as CC/158/ 2015 and grant the reliefs prayed therein in favour of the Appellant/Complainant and further be pleased to initiate the proceedings u/s 340 CrPc against Respondents;

C) Pass any such other and further order(s) in favour of the Appellant/Complainant as this Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he had booked a flat with the Opposite Party (OP) and paid initial registration amount of Rs.3,10,000/-. The priority for allotment was determined, and subsequent payments were made as per the allotment letter. However, there is a discrepancy in the dispatch and receipt of the allotment letter. According to the OP, the allotment letter was sent on 24.01.2013, but the Complainant claims it was sent to wrong address and never received until it was received along with another letter dated 10.04.2014. Regardless of this discrepancy, he paid the required dues as per the allotment letter to the OPs, both with and without protest. There was also a disagreement regarding parking charges, with the Complainant stating that no parking charges were to be levied, while the OPs booklet indicated that parking charges were applicable, with different rates for covered and open parking. Despite this discrepancy, the Complainant deposited the parking amount under protest and alleged that he deposited Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs more than the flat cost. However, as the possession was delayed, he incurred additional expenses by renting another flat at Rs.20,000/- per month. During pendency of the instant appeal, vide order dated 23.07.2019, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that IA/135/2019 (Stay) had become infructuous as they have already paid money against the revised allotment letter and taken the possession. Therefore, the possession of the said flat has been taken over by the Complainant.

4.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that the essence of this case is about miscalculation of the amount deposited by him and incorrect imposition of interest on the delayed period, rather than a dispute regarding the rise in cost. The estimated price of the flat was Rs.31,00,000/-. On 01.01.2014, the Appellant received a notice to deposit the reservation amount for the first time. Without any default, he deposited Rs.37,12,868/-. Despite this, the flat was not allotted, and a revised allotment letter dated 30.09.2015, demanding Rs.13,98,316/- was issued. Consequently, he was compelled to file a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission. The Respondents allegedly attempted to mislead the Commission by filing a false reply and affidavit, asserting that the reason for not handing over possession of the flat was incomplete payment, alleging that only Rs.23,01,770/- was paid and Rs.5,35,338/- was due. Despite issuing multiple revised allotment letters, the Respondents purportedly failed to consider the actual amount deposited by him, as the cost of the flat remained consistent at Rs.33,80,100/- in each of these revised allotment letters. He produced a calculation chart without any prior pleadings or affidavit. This chart contradicted their earlier stance presented in the Reply and Affidavit in evidence, acknowledging that he actually deposited Rs.37,12,868/-. In response, the Appellant filed a reply with an affidavit, denouncing the calculation chart as false and baseless, and demanded action for perjury against the Respondents. It was further argued that the State Commission relied solely upon the calculation chart (Annex P-28) and disregarded the reply vide (Anne P-29) submitted by the Appellant. Despite this, the impugned order was passed directing Respondent to issue a revised allotment letter and instructing the Appellant to deposit the demanded amount within a month. Subsequently, the Respondent issued another revised allotment letter dated 13.12.2018, demanding Rs.14,90,725, and a letter dated 18.12.2018 demanding Rs.7,71,945/-. The Appellant complied with by paying the demanded amount.

5.      The learned Counsel for the OP/Respondent argued that the Complainant was informed vide letter No. 8300 dated 24.01.2013 by the Housing Board. However, he concealed this letter, despite referring it in letter dated 01.01.2014. He did not object to the non-receipt of the reservation letter before filing the complaint. As per the demand, the first instalment of Rs.4,65,000/- was required to be paid by 23.02.2013. He was supposed to pay Rs. 31.00 lakhs of the price estimated, deducting Rs.3,10,000/- as the registration amount, as per the timeline specified in the letter dated 24.01.2013. However, he deposited only Rs.23,01,770/-. Consequently, notice dated 01.01.2014 was issued for failing to deposit the amount as per the reservation letter. It is argued that if the Complainant did not receive the reservation letter dated 24.01.2013, could not have known the remaining instalments. He did not deposit the amount as per the timeline and never raised any objections. It is claimed that the Complainant provided incorrect information in the appeal without supporting documents, which are not admitted. The Respondent argued that the Complainant failed to deposit the entire amount for parking charges, leading to the non-handing over of possession. As a result, an amount of Rs. 4,60,339 /- as principal and Rs. 75,659 /- as service tax, totalling to Rs. 5,35,998 /- is due, with additional interest and penalty to be levied as per rules.

6.      As regards the objection raised by the Complainant w.r.t. cost, the Counsel argued that the Commission has no jurisdiction to decide on this matter. He asserted that the Housing Board demanded amounts in accordance with the rules and not unnecessarily. Revised allotment letters were issued in revision to the previously issued letter dated 30.06.2015, and not arbitrarily. The Respondent denied the allegations of the Complainant in their application dated 21.03.2018, stating that the Complainant did not file an affidavit in support of the application, making it untenable. Additionally, a calculation chart was submitted by the Respondent on 13.03.2018, which mentioned Rs.6,89,081 as payable by the Complainant until 13-12-17 and was relied upon by the State Commission in the impugned order.

7.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

8.      Since the Respondent/OP has already handed over possession of the flat as per Order of the Ld. State Commission, the remaining issue in this case pertains to purported Miscalculation of amount paid by the Appellant/ Complainant to the Respondent/ OP and interest on delayed period in relation to the purchase of the flat in question.

9.      Upon perusal of the order of the learned State Commission, particularly the calculation tables illustrating the amounts deposited by the Complainant, it is noted that there are two tables (Annexure P28). One table delineates the amounts deposited up to the allotment letter issued on 30.03.2015, while the second table has the details of the amounts deposited subsequent to the issue of the said allotment letter. The cumulative total of both tables amounts to Rs.37,12,868/-, a figure which is undisputed by both parties. Additionally, as per Estate Officer declaration of 30.12.2017, a sum of Rs.6,89,081/- was outstanding from the Complainant, a fact neither contested nor rebutted by the Respondent/OP through the filing of any affidavit refuting the accuracy of this calculation. For ease of reference, pertinent excerpts from the Order of the State Commission are provided below:-

 A. Details of Amount Deposited Up to Allotment Letter issued dated 30.03.2015.

B. Details of Amount Deposited After Allotment Letter issued dated 30.03.2015.

                                                                                                      3702583                                                                                                                                3712868                                                                                                                                    10285

10.    Therefore, Rs.37,12,868/- deposited by the Complainant, is undisputed by both parties. Thus, he has deposited Rs.37,12,868/- and the details of outstanding dues declared by the Estate Officer, inclusive of interest, on the Complainant are as follows:

11.    It is pertinent to note that in compliance of the impugned Order dated 29.11.2018, the Rajasthan Housing Board, the OP/Respondent, issued a revised allotment letter along with calculation chart dated 13.12.2018 in revision to previously issued allotment letter No 4556 dated 30.06.2015. Further, another letter No. 5292 dated 18.12.2018 was issued, demanding Rs.7,71,945/- for the purpose of possession handover. The breakdown of the amount in the letter dated 18.12.2018 is as follows:-      

1. Outstanding amount as per the allotment letter    4,60,349/-

          2. Due amount of service tax                                                   83,507/-

          3. Administrative charges amount                                           14,907/-

          4. Interest amount on outstanding amount               2,13,182/-

                                                                                                _________

              Amount to be Deposited                                         7,71,945

                                                                                                _________
         

12.    Following this, the Appellant/Complainant complied by paying the aforementioned demanded amounts, and in response, the Respondent/ OP facilitated the handover of possession of the flat to the Appellant/Complainant.

13.     Returning to the issue raised by the Appellant / Complainant as “whether the Respondent/OP miscalculated the amounts deposited by the Complainant and incorrectly imposed interest for the delay period. To determine the said issue, during the proceedings before this commission, vide order dated 06.12.2023 the learned Counsel for the Appellant was directed to furnish precise and clear details outlining the calculations related to the payments, inclusive of dates and cross-references to pleadings and documents. The Appellant/Complainant, asserted that the total amount paid by them under protest up to date was Rs.37,12,868/-+Rs.7,71,945/- = Rs.44,84,813/-. The Appellant contended that the demand raised by the Respondent through the last allotment letter amounted to Rs.39,72,640/- as of 30.09.2015, which included interest element Rs.4,77,972/- for the delayed period. He argued that he is not liable to pay interest for such period, and thus, Rs.4,77,972/- should be subtracted from the total demand of Rs.39,72,640 (Rs.39,72,640 - Rs.4,77,972 = Rs.34,94,668). Thus, the demand without interest is Rs.34,94,668/-. Moreover, based on this premise, the Respondent may recalculate the Tax component, under heads ‘E’ to ‘I’ of the allotment letter, as of the date of issue of the last revised allotment letter dated 30.09.2015. Up to this point, the Appellant had already paid Rs.37,12,868/-. Thus, the excess amount paid was Rs.37,12,868 - Rs.34,94,668 = Rs.2,18,200/-. Additionally, a further Rs.7,71,945/- was paid in compliance with the Impugned judgment dated 29.11.2018 and in compliance with the letter dated 18.12.2018. Hence, the total amount paid in excess is Rs.7,71,945 + Rs.2,18,200 = Rs.9,90,145/-. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for a refund of Rs.9,90,145/-.

14.     Adverting to the issue whether the Respondent/OP unjustly imposed excessive interest towards delayed payments or erroneously calculated the interest amount and other charges, including parking charges and service tax, it is undisputed that the Complainant initially booked a flat with the OP under a self-financed scheme in 2012, and paid a registration amount of Rs.3,10,000/-. Subsequently, the OP issued a reservation letter cum allotment letter on 24.01.2013. However, according to the Complainant, this letter was sent to an incorrect address and was never received. Afterwards, on 01.01.2014, the Complainant received a notice demanding the deposit of the reservation amount along with the said reservation letter dated 24.01.2013, as per which, the estimated price of the unit was Rs.31,00,000/-, payable as per the following schedule: -

15.    It is pertinent to mention that Clause No. 1 of the reservation letter stipulates that it was issued solely based on the estimated cost. Following the allotment to the Applicant through a lottery process and determination of the final amount, the remaining balance must be deposited as per schedule specified in the allotment letter. Further, Clause No. 2 specified that in the event of default in payment as per the schedule, interest @ 18% would accrue for the delayed period, and non-payment of installments would result in cancellation of the allotment, subject to actions under the applicable rules. Undisputedly, the Complainant did not adhere to the payment schedule specified and the interest accrued and service tax accumulated, along with an increase in the cost of the flat, given that only the estimated price was notified in the reservation letter, not the final price.

16.    In the present case, the Complainant was under contractual obligation to make payments to the Housing Board as and when they became due. The Housing Board diligently pursued the Complainant for these payments through multiple letters and correspondence. However, the Complainant claimed non-receipt of initial allotment letter, resulting in accrued interest liability and a higher overall amount due. Nonetheless, the evidence on record, including the order of the State Commission, does not find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Housing Board. Consequently, the State Commission's directive for the Complainant to fulfill the remaining payment obligations is appropriate and lawful, as no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error is evident therein.

17.     In view of the above, the Appeal lacks merit, therefore, dismissed.