Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Kanpur Development Authority —Petitioner
versus
Sudarshan Devi —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1365 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 06/02/2015 in Appeal No.179/2010 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 9.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Final cost of the house may work out to be more than the estimated cost conveyed to the allottee at the time of initial allotment.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Allotment of house—Payment of amount—Scope—Respondent-complainant was allotted a house—Estimated cost of house at Rs. 1,48,443.52/- however actual cost incurred at Rs. 1,48,443.52/-—Non-execution of sale deed was on account of the complainant housing not paid the demand of Rs. 1,99,946/- as raised by the petitioner-authority—Admittedly possession of house was delivered to the complainant even before the complaint was instituted—Final cost of house may work out to be more than the estimated cost conveyed to allottee at the time of initial allotment—Thus, the complainant was required to pay Rs. 1,04,443.52/- towards cost of house allotted to him—Said cost if was not acceptable to him he could have declined to take possession of the house—Revised demand letter directed to be issued to complainant—Interest from the complainant also directed to be charged @ 12% p.a. up to the date of institution of the complaint—And @ 10% after the date on which the consumer complaint was instituted. (Paras 5 to 11)
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—The respondent/complainant was allotted house No. C-120, Gulmohar Vihr, W Block, Juhu, Kanpur in a draw of lots held on 28.03.1985 and allotment letter dated 09.04.1985 was issued to her. In the allotment letter the estimated cost of the house was given as Rs.1.15 lakhs. However, the actual cost of the house came to Rs.148443.52 and was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 11.01.1991. The balance sale consideration could be paid in instalments. The complainant did not pay the instalments in time. The possession of the house was given to the complainant but the conveyance deed in her favour was not executed. The non-execution of the sale deed was on account of the complainant having not paid the demand of Rs.199946/- raised by the petitioner Authority. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking execution of the conveyance deed in her favour. She also wanted that the petitioner Authority should not demand more than Rs. 1,15,000/- from him towards the cost of the house.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Authority which, inter alia, stated in its written version that the complainant had not paid the demand raised by it. A reference in this regard was made to various letters alleged to have been sent by the petitioner Authority to the complainant on different dates.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 14.10.2009 directed as under:-
“Claim is allowed. After OTS fees were deposited on 04.03.1999, the entire remaining amount demanded by the defendant is cancelled. The defendant is ordered that they must calculate the remaining amount in the head of the house from the date of deposing fees in OTS within 30 days of the - judgment, thereafter the defendant must execute registry within 30 days in favor of the plaintiff. They must give Rs. 1000/- in suit cost, which also must be adjusted in remaining amount. In case of default, the defendant would pay 10% simple interest per annum from the date, of depositing until registry on the entire amount deposited by the plaintiff.”
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner Authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed the petitioner Authority is before this Commission.
5. Admittedly, the possession of the house was delivered to the complainant even before the Consumer Complaint was instituted. It is also an admitted position that the conveyance deed of the house has not been executed so far in favour of the complainant.
6. The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the complainant is liable to pay only Rs. 1,15,000/- or she is liable to pay Rs. 1,04,443.52/- towards the cost of the house. As noted earlier the cost given in the allotment letter issued to the complainant was only an estimated cost. In the houses constructed by agencies such as the petitioner Kanpur Development Authority the final cost of the house may work out to be more than the estimated cost conveyed to the allottee at the time of initial allotment. Therefore, the complainant was required to pay Rs.1,04,443.52/-, towards the cost of the house allotted to him. If the said cost was not acceptable to him he could have declined to take possession of the house.
7. Vide order dated 17.07.2020 and 07.09.2020 this Commission directed as under:-
“The petitioner is directed to file a detailed Chart, disclosing therein (i) the date on which each installment was payable by the complainant, (ii) the date on which the said installment was actually paid in case, the installment stands paid and (iii) the interest payable on that particular installment alongwith the rate of interest.
The above referred Chart will be filed within four weeks. Re-notify for final hearing on 07.9.2020.”
“The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit in terms of the order dated 17.07.2020.
