BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 48/2003 Filed on 06.02.2003

Dated : 30.10.2008

Complainants:

1. S. Panchali Ammal, residing at Flat MF-4-105, Prasanth Nagar, West Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

Addl. complainant:

2. Sarasu, D/o Panchali Ammal, residing at Flat MF-4-105, Prasanth Nagar, West Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. P.A. Ahamed)

Opposite parties:

1. Kerala State Housing Board, represented by its Secretary, Housing Board Building, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By adv. Saji. S.L)

2. The Regional Engineer, Trivandrum Housing Unit, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram.

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 28.09.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been heard on 07.10.2008, the Forum on 30.10.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had applied for allotment of MF4 type flat during January 1977, in pursuance of the publication of application for the allotment of residential flats to persons of the middle income group at Prasanth Nagar, West Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, MF4 type flat No. 105 was allotted to the complainant by the opposite parties vide decision dated 31.07.1979 for Rs. 46000/- in addition to an amount of Rs. 1523/- sought to be deposited as share of the complainant in constructing common facilities such as pump house, compound wall, gate etc. The complainant on the basis of the letter of allotment, executed an agreement on 28.09.1979, and the key of the flat was handed over to the complainant. As per the terms of the agreement the price fixed for the flat is to be remitted in monthly instalments over a period of 12 years. On the completion of instalments on 06.03.1987, the complainant requested the opposite party to execute the Sale Deed, but such execution was evaded and postponed. As per the terms of agreement the price fixed at the time of allotment was treated as tentative and it was further stated the final price will be fixed taking into consideration the additional land value that the opposite party is likely to pay to the land owner, consequent to any land acquisition case and also any additional construction made for common facilities and difference into price will carry interest @ 10.5%. The land originally belonged to the Maharaja of Travancore who surrendered it to the Government as excess land. The Government, after fixing a price, transferred the land to the Kerala State Housing Board, the 1^st opposite party and

therefore there is no land acquisition claim on the land. No additional construction was also made in the building. As per the terms of the contract, the opposite party is bound to execute the Sale Deed once the entire price amount is paid. The complainant had paid the entire amount by instalments on 06.03.1987. Since then the complainant has been requesting the opposite parties to execute the Sale Deed. In February 1998, the opposite parties send communication to all the allottees to pay Rs. 54243/- by allottees of M5 type flat and Rs. 38198/- by allottees of MF4 type flat towards final price fixed for the building. The hire purchase transaction of the flats which were allotted in August 1979, were closed in July 1991 but the opposite parties took the decision only on 15.11.1997. The final price has been communicated after a lapse of 19 years and the allottees have been asked to pay interest @ 10.5% for all these years.

Challenging the above decisions of the opposite parties 46 of the allottees had filed complaint before this Consumer Forum for which this Forum had observed that calculation of interest for 18 years as unreasonable and had fixed an amount of Rs. 8844/- as admissible and reasonable amount to be remitted by MF5 type of flat and ordered the opposite party to execute the Sale Deed within 30 days of deposit and if the amount is not deposited within 30 days it will carry interest at 10.5%. The above decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and accordingly the opposite parties had executed the Sale Deed to all the 46 allottees who had filed the complaint. Opposite parties did not execute the Sale Deed to the allottees including the complainant though they were ready to pay the amount. The complainant approached the opposite party several times for paying Rs. 8844/- with interest 10.5% from 30.05.2000. But the opposite party wilfully declined to accept the amount and denied to execute the Sale Deed. Non-acceptance of amount and non-execution of Sale Deed (as per the order of this Hon'ble Forum dated 30.05.2000) is wilful negligence and unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint for directing the opposite party to execute the Sale Deed after accepting Rs. 8,844/- with 10.5% interest from 30.05.2000 along with compensation and costs.

The 1^st opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party also contending as

follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant was allotted flat No. MF 4 105 in Prasanth Nagar Housing Scheme vide allotment letter No. PRMF-4/78 dated 28.03.1979 and the tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs. 46000/- and the agreement for sale of the flat was executed between the complainant and the Board on 25.09.1979. The complainant was requested to remit an amount of Rs. 1523/- towards proportionate share of the cost of construction of compound wall, fixing gates, water tanks, pump house etc. vide letter dated 23.08.1984. But he had not remitted the above amount. These works were carried out at the request of the Prasanth Nagar Allottees' Association. The complainant executed the necessary agreement with the Board on 28.09.1979 and as per the agreement the tentative price fixed for the flat is to be remitted in equal monthly instalments over a period of 12 years and the allottee is bound to pay the difference between the tentative cost and final cost together with interest at 10.5% per annum. The complainant vide letter dated 20.05.1998 requested for the issue of sale deed. However as on that particular date the complainant had not remitted the dues in full as per the tentative cost. Moreover the opposite parties were not in a position to issue the sale deed for want of Apartment Ownership Rules and Regulations which was published later. The complainant on 01.06.1998 requested for transfer of allotment of the said flat to her daughter Smt. Sarasu Sankaralingam. However the transfer of allotment did not take place as she failed to produce the requisite document. A notice for dues as per final statement of accounts was issued to the complainant on 07.02.1998. However she failed to remit the amounts demanded on 23.08.1984 and 07.02.1998. Without remitting the dues the complainant requested for the issue of sale deed on 29.01.2002 and by further notice dated 11.03.2002 saying that she is prepared to remit a similar amount as ordered by the Forum on 30.05.2000. As per the agreement executed by her with the Board on 25.09.1979 she is bound to pay the balance amount demanded by the Board with interest upto the date of payment. The complainant had not disputed the amount within the period and any request for issue of sale deed thereafter without remitting the dues is of no merits. Therefore she was asked to remit the dues with interest before 31.03.1998 vide letter dated 07.02.1998 of the opposite parties. Complainant's claim is against the provisions of the agreement and barred by limitation. Hence there is no evasion or postponement in the execution of the sale deed as alleged. It is admitted that there was no land acquisition claim on the land. The complainant had remitted only the tentative cost of the flat. The complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 27,222/- on or before 31.03.1998 towards the difference between the tentative cost and final cost and the difference in additional works cost for additional amenities demanded on 23.08.1984. The opposite parties can issue the sale deed only on settlement of the said amount with interest upto the date of remittance. In terms of the agreement the decision of the opposite party in fixing the revised price of the flat shall be conclusive and final. It is submitted that the complainant is entitled to get the sale deed of MF4 105 and not MF5 flat. The complainant's case has no similarity with the cases decided by the Hon'ble Forum in its decision dated 30.05.2000. The Hon'ble Forum vide order dated 30.05.2000 in O.P. No. 331/1998 and similar O.Ps, filed by allottees of MF-4 type flats and MF-5 type flats ordered to execute the sale deed to 46 allottees of Prasanth Nagar Housing Scheme. The complainant was not a party in those cases and the complainant's present complaint has no similarity with those cases. The complainant had not objected to the demand for remittance of Rs. 27,122/- on or before 31.03.1998 till 01.03.2002 or requested for issuance of sale deed, except complainant's request dated 20.05.1988. The opposite party never acted discriminately towards the complainant. There is no wilful negligence, unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant was asked to remit an amount of Rs. 45,518/- on or before 31.01.2003 towards closure of account and for issuance of sale deed. The complainant's case has no similarity with the decision dated 30.05.2000 and complainant's claim is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

As the 1^st complainant is no more, her legal heir-the additional complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.

P1 to P7 were marked on her side. Opposite parties had no evidence.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the complainant is liable to pay any additional amount to the opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed?

Point (i):- Admittedly, the complainant has been allotted a MF4 type flat at Prasanth Nagar belonging to the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties, as on 20.05.1998, the complainant had requested for issuance of sale deed, and the opposite parties had informed the complainant with regard to the difficulties to issue the sale deed as the land value was not finalized and for want of Apartment Ownership Rules & Regulations. According to the opposite party, the complainant requested for issuance of sale deed on 29.01.2002 and another demand made on 11.03.2002 saying that she is prepared to remit a similar amount as ordered by the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 30.05.2000. The complainant has been intimated to remit the final price of Rs. 27,222/- on 07.02.1998 and she had not remitted the amount demanded on 23.08.1984 amounting to Rs. 1,523/-. Hence according to the opposite party since the complainant had not disputed the demands her claim is barred by limitation as it is against the provisions of the agreement.

According to the complainant, as per the terms of the contract, the opposite party is bound to execute the sale deed once the entire price amount is paid and the entire amount was paid by the complainant by instalments on 06.03.1987. It is pertinent to note that, the opposite parties have admitted their inability to execute the sale deed, as per the agreement, due to reasons beyond their control and according to the opposite parties, the complainant has not raised the demand in time and it is hence barred by limitation. The complainant has pleaded that on the completion of instalments on 06.03.1987, the complainant had requested the opposite party to execute the sale deed, but the opposite parties evaded such execution and postponed the same. The admission of the opposite party with regard to their inability to issue the sale deed for want of Apartment Ownership Rules & Regulations published later asserts the allegation of the complainant. Law requires a party to the agreement to discharge the obligation within a reasonable time. The opposite parties have not produced any material to corroborate their justification for the delay caused in fixing the price. When there is a violation of agreement on the part of both the parties, since this being a consumer complaint, the consumer should be given the benefit of the same. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had requested the opposite parties for issuance of the sale deed on 22.09.2002& 11.03.2002, 27.12.2002 for which Ext. P7 reply demanding Rs. 45,518/- dated 18.01.2003 has been sent to the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant has accordingly preferred this complaint on 06.02.2003 before this Forum. In the above circumstance, this point is found in favour of the complainant.

Points (ii) & (iii):- The learned counsel for the complainant had argued that the complainant has been asked to remit an amount of Rs. 45,518/- vide Ext. P7 for executing the sale deed and the opposite party had sent communication to all the allottees to pay of Rs. 54243/- and Rs. 38,198/- by the allottees of MF5 and M4 types of flats respectively, and the above final price has been communicated after a lapse of 19 years for which they have been asked to pay interest @ 10.5% for all these years. It was further contended that the above decision of the opposite parties were challenged by 46 of the allottees before this Forum and the Forum had fixed Rs. 8,844/- as the reasonable amount to be remitted by MF4 type of flats and the above decision has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also. The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant's case has no similarity with the cases decided by this Hon'ble Forum in its decision dated 30.05.2000 and further contended that the complainant is not entitled to any relief on the basis of the decisions of this Hon'ble Forum in a similar case in O.P. No. 917/1992. Though the opposite parties have contended that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and referred order of the Forum in O.P. No. 917/1992 in support of their contention, the said order has not been produced by the opposite parties.

We have gone through the order of this Forum produced by the complainant. On considering the entire facts narrated in the order of this Forum dated 30.05.2000, we find that, the facts narrated in the complaint and the facts of the above order are similar and are squarely applicable in this case. The main issue which has been considered therein is whether such a re-fixation of price by the opposite party after a lapse of 19 years is just and warranted. The Forum has found that the amount of interest calculated appears quite unreasonable and unwarranted. “If the final price has been fixed within a reasonable period of one or two years from the date of agreement, this would not have happened. Fixing the final price after a delay of 19 years and then charging interest retrospectively is found unreasonable .. even assuming that the opposite party had the right to fix the price; yet the fixing of the price must be within a reasonable time. The District Forum has not interfered in the quantum of price finally fixed for the flats; interference was only with respect to the charging of interest for 19 years. The justification for the delay now offered cannot be accepted because we do not consider the reasons now attempted cannot be accepted as justifiable”. Considering the above order, we are also of the view that, though the opposite party is vested with the right to fix the final price, it should have been done within a reasonable period. In the above order, the amount to be paid by MF4 has been fixed as Rs. 8844/- and we fix the same amount with 10.5% from 30.05.2000 as just and reasonable.

The opposite parties have contended that the complainant's flat is MF4 and not MF5. Though the complainant has pleaded that for MF5 type of flat Rs. 8844/- has been fixed, taking the entire facts of the complainant it is seen that the complainant is an allottee of MF4 type of flat and he has sought the relief for execution of sale deed for MF4 type. The order of the Forum referred also asserts Rs. 8844/- for MF4 type flats. Hence the mentioning of MF5 in para 8 of the complaint can only be considered as a typographical error.

During the course of the proceedings the 1^st complainant expired and the legal heir has been impleaded as the 2^nd additional complainant.

In the result, the 2^nd complainant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 8,844/- with 10.5% from

30.05.2000 within 30 days of receipt of the order along with sufficient records as demanded by the opposite parties and the opposite parties on receipt of the amount shall execute a sale deed in favour of the 2^nd complainant within 30 days of deposit and production of relevant records. No order as to costs

and compensation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th October 2008.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

O.P. No. 48/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of letter dated 28.03.79 issued by opposite party.

P2 - Photocopy of chellan dated 06.03.1987 issued by opposite

party.

P3 - Photocopy of notice dated 07.02.1998 issued by the opposite

party.

P4 - Photocopy of letter dated 22.09.2002 issued by the

complainant.

P5 - Photocopy of letter dated 11.03.2002 issued by complainant.

P6 - Photocopy of letter 27.12.2002 issued by complainant.

P7 - Photocopy of notice No. E7-MF-4105/PRSN dated

18.01.2003 issued by the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT