KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.462/04 JUDGMENT DATED : 16/8/08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Kerala State Housing Board Hosing Board Buildings, Thiruvananthapuram & Regional Engineer and Executive Engineer Thiruvananthapuram Housing Unit- : APPELLANT represented by Administrative Officer Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.George Mathew) Vs V.Sisupalan : RESPONDENT Sasthamthodiyil Mayyanadu P.O., Kollam JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Housing Board that is under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 12,125/- with interest at 9% and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- vide order in OP.388/01 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The case of the complainant is that the Housing Board refused to refund a sum of Rs.12,125/- out of the amount paid ie, Rs.1,05,000/- towards the price of the plot allotted. The complainant had sought for cancellation of the allotment as the Housing Board demanded a further sum of Rs.57,011/-. Cancellation was allowed but only a sum of Rs. 91,875/- was refunded, after deducting Rs.12,125/- as service charges. 2. The case of the appellant before the Forum is that they are allowed to collect service charges as per the agreement and hence there is no deficiency of service. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P4 documents produced by the complainant. 4. The Forum has found that there is no authority produced for deducting 12.5% as service charge. 5. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the agreement produced by him at the appellate stage wherein at page 2 it is provided for adding amounts for development works and works for providing services and other amenities at the time of final settlement of the account. We find that the Clause is applicable only at the time of final settlement of accounts in the case of a person who is allotted and who purchases the plot. The above clause is not meant for deducting amounts at the time in when the allotment is sought to be cancelled before the final settlement of accounts. 6. The counsel has also contended that as per Sec.139 of the Housing Board Act the complainant ought to have issued a statutory notice and that in the absence of such a notice the complaint cannot be entertained. We find that no such contention has been taken in the version or in the appeal memorandum. Hence the above contention has to be rejected out right. In the circumstance we find no reason as such to interfere in the order of the Forum as such. All the same, the direction of the Forum to pay interest at 9% appears excessive. The appellant is here with directed to refund the amount of Rs.12.125/- with 7.5% interest from the date of cancellation, instead of the date of remittance. The order to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- is set aside. The order to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- is sustained. The appellant is directed to refund the amount as above within four months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the appellant will be liable to pay interest at 12% from the date of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHANRAN : MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
