PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

          These two revision petitions arise out of one and the same order dated 13.12.2006 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No.1902/2005 vide which the appeal against the order dated 10.10.2005 of the Additional District Consumer Forum, Urban District, Bangalore dismissing the complaint of R.Keshava Murthy has been allowed.  The order passed by District Forum has been set aside and the opposite parties have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,33,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment by the complainant till realization.

          While Shri Keshava Murthy, the complainant has filed this revision petition No.1116/2007 seeking possession of the house allotted to him as also for a direction to the opposite parties to pay interest on the sum of Rs.2,33,000/- paid by him ;  the opposite parties i.e. Karnataka Housing Board and its Manager have filed RP/1148/2007 seeking setting aside of the order of the State Commission.

          For the sake of convenience, in our discussions, we will refer Shri Keshava Murthy, the petitioner in RP/1116/2007 as the complainant and the Karnataka Housing Board and its Manager, the petitioners in RP/1148/2007 as the opposite parties. 

Brief facts of the case are that ---

          The complainant registered an application with the opposite parties for the allotment of a house on payment of Rs.10,000/- on 28.7.1993.  The house being house No.S-HIG ‘A’ 85 (Ist floor) at Yelahanka was allotted to him vide letter dated 29.11.1993. It was stated in the letter of allotment that a sum of Rs.75,000/- was to be paid before 28.1.1994.  However, the complainant failed to comply with this requirement and remitted a sum of Rs.1,20,750/- on 12.9.1996, almost two years after the due date.  Subsequently, on 20.7.1998, when the opposite parties forwarded a draft lease-cum-sale agreement for its completion and return within 30 days, the complainant again failed to comply with the same. It had been stated in the letter dated 20.7.1998 that the complainant was required to pay the balance cost of the property viz ; Rs.3,52,250/- together with interest @ 18.5% p.a.  Option was also given to him to pay the amount on monthly equated installments @ Rs.6,648/-.    However, without  any reference to  the  terms  of  payment  offer made  to  him,  the  complainant  deposited  a  sum of  Rs.1,02,250/-  on  27.8.1998 and requested the opposite parties to re-calculate the amount as stated in the lease-cum-sale agreement. In order to accommodate the complainant, the opposite parties vide their letter dated 24.9.1998 advised the complainant to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement on payment of the defaulted amount with interest but again there was no response. This offer was renewed on 24.2.2000 which again failed to evoke any response from the complainant.  Finally, vide their letter dated 26.2.2001, the opposite parties directed him to pay the balance amount with the penalty of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 10 days and execute the lease-cum-sale agreement failing which it was stated that ‘they would be constrained to cancel the allotment’.  The complainant even thereafter failed to pay the balance amount and did not execute the lease-cum-sale agreement and the allotment, therefore, was cancelled by the opposite parties on 28.7.2001. 

A complaint thereafter was filed before the District Forum which was contested by the opposite parties.  Parties led their evidence.  On appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the District Forum did not find the opposite parties deficient in any manner and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.  As stated earlier, the State Commission in the appeal filed before it by the complainant set aside the District Forum’s order and directed the opposite parties to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with 12% rate of interest.

          Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the State Commission ought to have considered that the complainant was entitled to the possession of the house allotted to him since he had deposited a sum of Rs.2,33,000/- and sought the recalculation of the installments with regard to the balance payment which was never communicated to him by the opposite parties.  Had they informed him of the revised monthly installments of repayment, he would have certainly complied with the same.  The cancellation of the allotment, therefore, was not justified. 

A perusal of the order passed by District Forum clearly brings out that the complainant has repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the offer of allotment.  Despite repeated opportunities, he had failed to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement and also defaulted in making the payment towards the cost of the house.   The history of the case clearly indicates that the complainant was thrice directed to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement, first vide their letter dated 20.7.1998, subsequently vide their letter dated 17.9.1998 and finally on 26.2.2001.  Thus, the opposite parties had provided more than deserved accommodation to the complainant.  The complainant, however, has adopted a dilatory course seeking recalculation of the monthly installments which had no relationship with the execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement.  Cancellation of the allotment of the flat has been ordered quite in keeping with the regulations framed by the Karnataka Housing Board.  Moreover, the State Commission has allowed the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant  with the opposite parties with 12% rate of interest, which in our view is just and proper.  We, therefore, do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Revision petition No.1116/2007 filed by the complainant is, therefore, dismissed.

In so far as Revision Petition No.1148/2007 filed by the opposite parties is concerned, we again do not find any merit therein.  Since, the amount deposited by the complainant has been lying in deposit with them, they must have used the amount for the furtherance of their business/construction activities.  The State Commission has, therefore, rightly ordered its refund with 12% rate of interest which cannot be said to be excessive. The revision petition too accordingly is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own cost for litigation.