Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the OP floated a scheme on 26.2.1993 vide Annexure – 1 inviting applications form the intending buyers for purchase of MIG house on lease basis on payment of Rs.1,05,500/- and if on instalment basis, it’s cost was Rs.1,82,034/-. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant on payment of necessary cost of the house got the house allotted vide MIG/12 in his favour and the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 27.1.1998 but the balance amount of Rs.1,50,384/- was to be repayable in 52 quarterly instalments commencing from 1.1.1993. It is alleged that the house in question was delivered on 20.12.2004. The only allegation of the complainant is that at the time of physical possession of the house, it has got defective and complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of the OP with several correspondence and according to him he has spent Rs.55,000/- in the year 1995 for repairing of the house with due intimation to the OP but by that time complainant has already deposited Rs.1,63,510/-. He had to only deposit Rs.18,524/- as outstanding but the OP without hearing the request of the complainant imposed the penal interest of Rs.45,835/-. When the complainant approached the OP to waive the amount because of spending Rs.55,000/- towards repairing of the house, there was no response. However, on 26.10.2006 the OP issued a letter to the complainant to deposit Rs.1,14,674/-. On 28.2.2007 OP issued a statement of account indicating Rs.1,29,495.30 as penal interest and service charges. They charged from October, 1994 whereas the lease – cum- sale agreement was executed on 27.1.1998. Showing such action as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, complainant filed the complaint.
4. Per contra, OP filed written version stating that instalments were not paid in time by the complainant by which delay payment charges, interest and penal interest was imposed for the defaulted period and as such it became Rs.1,10,971/- which the complainant is liable to pay. On payment of entire dues of Rs.1,29,495/- with interest house was registered in favour of the complainant. The OP also denied any expenditure by complainant towards repairing of the house as alleged by the complainant. Thus, they submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest. The OP is hereby directed to execute registered sale deed in respect of the house in question i.e. bearing No.MIG-12, under Jatni Housing Scheme, on receiving the amount of Rs.74,645/- as calculated above from the complainant. Compensation for mental agony is fixed at Rs.2000/- & litigation cost is assessed at Rs.1000/- payable by the OP to the complainant. The order be complied with within two months from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the same against the OP in accordance with law.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during course of hearing of the appeal complainant has deposited all the demanded amount and there is also registration of lease-cum- sale agreement in favour of the complainant and also submitted that they have already executed the lease –cum-sale agreement in favour of the original complainant Sipra Mohanty but after her death the necessary agreement for transfer ship has been already executed in favour of her LRs. But the lease – cum- sale deed in favour of the present LRs of the complainant has not been executed. Therefore he submitted that since the impugned order so far payment of Rs.74,645/- has already made, the rest of the impugned order so far payment of compensation and litigation cost may be set aside by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the DFR.
9. In view of the fact that the entire impugned order has been complied and the entire dues has been paid and the appellant has admitted about execution of the lease –cum- sale agreement in favour of the allotte and subsequently same document for sale also in favour of the LRs, we find that the impugned order has been complied with. Therefore, rest part of the impugned order regarding payment of compensation of cost is set aside.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
