The central legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of maintenance and registration charges as per the terms of the agreement.

ORDER

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order of the District Forum dated 8th January, 2008 whereby the appellant was held guilty of deficiency of service in demanding the maintenance charges and was directed to execute the sale deed of Plot No. E-20, Ved Vihar, Loni, U.P. without demanding any amount either on account of maintenance charges or registration charges as the complainant had already paid the sum of Rs. 40,800 to the OP.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

3. The facts which led to the passing of the impugned order are that the Respondent, Mrs. Santosh Garg was the allottee of plot No. E-20, Ved Vihar, Loni, UP in a project launched by the OP and had agreed to pay Rs. 1,20,000 being the cost of the plot. The last instalment of Rs. 8,600 was paid on 30.6.1993 vide receipt No. 1845. However, the Appellant did not inform the complainant about the status of the project till 22.9.2006, when the Respondent was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 30,800 for execution of the sale deed. Vide said letter the Appellant also called upon the Respondent to pay maintenance charges of Rs. 3,16,000 which were subsequently increased. Though the Respondent was not satisfied with the illegal demand, yet she sent a cheque of Rs. 40,800 to the Appellant (Rs. 30,800 as registration charges and Rs. 10,000 for maintenance charges, yet the OP failed to execute the sale deed and kept on inflating its demand towards maintenance charges and registration charges. As such, the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for directions to the Appellant to withdraw the inflated demand and to accept Rs. 40,800 as full and final payment of outstanding amount and also prayed for cost and compensation.

4. The Appellant controverted the allegations of the Respondent and justified its demand of maintenance charges on the ground that the plot in question was allotted to one Smt. Sundari Devi Bhatia w/o late Shri Thaker Dass Bhatia who had failed to pay instalments towards the sale consideration whereas the Appellant had continued to perform its obligations and develop the colonies as per the terms laid by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The said Smt. Sundari Devi Bhatia sold the plot of land to the Respondent vide agreement dated 30th March, 1993, whereunder the Respondent agreed and undertook to pay the instalments and expenses to the Appellant as well as to the other local and Government bodies well in time. On the basis of the said agreement, the allotment of the plot in question was transferred in favour of the Respondent but the Respondent failed to perform her obligations i.e. sign the buyer's agreement with the appellant in respect of the plot in question; pay the amount payable to the Appellant which remained due since 1990 along with interest due thereon and deposit the charges towards stamp duty, registration charges, etc. to get the sale deed executed in her favour. The Appellant has been developing and maintaining the residential colony in question since 1990 and has been repeatedly requesting the complainant to pay up the dues but the Respondent having failed to do so, there is no deficiency of service on its part.

5. The Respondent has in its complaint admitted the factum of being liable to pay the maintenance charges inasmuch as it has been stated in para 3 of the complaint that the Respondent had paid the last instalment which also included maintenance charges of the plot till June, 1993 and also the fact that the Appellant has placed on record the list of other allottees who have made the entire payment of the maintenance and other charges goes to show that the said charges are justified and payable in terms of the agreement. The Supreme Court has also in case of Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division Of Airfreight Ltd., JT 1996 (6) SC 254, held that t