Full Judgment
N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court)
1. The Appellant is the complainant and Respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint before District Forum under the following circumstances:
The complainant was allotted a flat at Anna Nagar West Extension by order of allotment dated 17.04.1986 under Ex.A1. The cost of the said flat was Rs.71,600/-, which was paid by him by way of cheque to the opposite party on 26.08.1986 under Ex.A4. Though the complainant has paid the amount, immediately after the allotment he had made a request for change of allotment and accordingly his request was conceded and another flat was allotted at Thiruvanmiyur Extension Scheme, Chennai-41 by order dated 16.02.1987 under Ex.A5. The cost of the flat at Thiruvanmiyur Extension is Rs.52,000/- which was fixed as tentative at the time of allotment. According to the complainant, even though he has occupied the new flat as earlier as in the year 1987 and in spite of the fact that he has paid excess amount which was paid for allotment of flat at Anna Nagar Scheme, the opposite party has refused to execute the Sale Deed and on other hand demanded a sum of Rs.1,37,758/- towards balance cost. In the light of the above fact, the complaint is filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum has dismissed the said complaint against which the present Appeal is filed.
3. We have heard the Appellant/Party in Person and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party. Since the opposite party remained exparte before the District Forum, this Commission permitted the opposite party to file necessary statement of account and additional affidavit by way clarification with regard to the various claims made by the complainant. We have perused all the materials including the statement indicating the cost of the flat and comparative cost of flat at Thiruvanmiyur and Anna Nagar Extension.
4. It is seen that the District Forum was not in a position to go into all such details in the absence of required particulars on behalf of the opposite party. The complainant/Appellant also has not furnished Housing Board letter particulars before the District Forum and as such the complaint came to be dismissed by holding that the amount as claimed by opposite party is payable by the complainant. However, on consideration of all the relevant materials placed before us, we are able to see that even as per the statement of calculation produced before us by the opposite party, it indicates that a sum of Rs.3,104/- representing 13% interest for a period of four months at the rate of Rs.776/- as if there is delay in payment to the house allotted at Anna Nagar. The opposite party has calculated as if the amount is due and payable by the complainant. The above interest is calculated to the amount of Rs.71,600/- which was paid by the complainant to the original allotment at Anna Nagar. We do not see any reason to charge interest to the above said payment even though the subsequent allotment of flat, the tentative cost of subsequent flat was fixed only as Rs.52,000/-. Similarly a sum of Rs.50/- towards watchman charge for original allotment at Anna Nagar for a period of four months was Rs.200/- added. In all a total sum of Rs.3,304/- appears to have been calculated towards the payment due by the complainant. In as much as the initial cost of the flat was paid as early as on 29.08.86, the adjustment of Rs.3,304/- from the out the payment made by the complainant is not justifiable on the part of the opposite party. The present demand by the opposite party is based on the revised cost/final cost of the flat. Even though the complainant has made a grievance that the opposite party is not entitled to claim any enhanced cost, it is settled legal position that whenever the House/Flat is allotted by indicating the cost at the time of original allotment as an initial cost as and when the cost is finalized, the opposite party is entitled to claim the additional costs. Hence the Housing Board is entitled to demand the same. However the amount now demanded by Housing Board includes 13% for belated payment. In the light of the fact that Rs.3,304/- is retained by the Housing Board from 29.08.1986 towards interest charges, the said amount should be credited to the balance amount payable by the complainant. Hence we are inclined to modify the order of the District Forum and disposed off the appeal in the following terms:
(a) The Housing Board shall intimate the complainant the actual cost payable by him after giving credit to a sum of Rs.3,304/- with 13% interest from 29.08.1986 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of order. It is made clear that the opposite party shall not claim any interest for the belated payment towards the balance amount payable for the period from 29.12.2005 till today, namely the time consumed by the complainant in pursuing his legal remedies before the Consumer Forum.
(b) On receipt of such communication, as and when the Appellant/Complainant makes payment of the same, the Sale Deed to be issued to him within the period of two weeks from the date of payment.
(c) to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost.
5. Appeal is disposed off in the above terms.