A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act must be dismissed based on merits rather than summarily if admitted.

1. The complainant in C.C. No. 191/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (District Forum for short) is in appeal. He is aggrieved by the final order dated 5.5.2016 of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. The complaint has been dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to file appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court for recovery of the excess amounts paid by him.

2. The complaint was filed by the appellant alleging that excess amounts had been charged from him by the respondent herein, over and above what was agreed upon between the parties as per an agreement executed among them. The respondents are builders who are engaged in the construction of building complexes and villas for residential and commercial purposes. As per an agreement dated 17.10.2007 the appellant had agreed to purchase and the respondents had agreed to construct and deliver an apartment for the purpose of his residence. However, the respondents delayed the construction by more than one year though the payments stipulated had been made promptly and without any delay. It was further alleged that an amount of Rs.1,58,807 had been extracted from the appellant as service tax at the time of registration and handing over of the apartment. The appellant had thereupon filed a complaint C.C. No. 675/2010 to cancel the unauthorized demand of service tax charged from him. According to him, the total sale consideration agreed upon was Rs.38,00,000 but, a total amount of Rs.41,43,990 had been recovered from him. The appellant also contends that the registration charges recovered from him was also excessive. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.1,79,760 was recovered on 18.10.2013 for registration. For the purpose of documentation, an amount of Rs.7,000 had been collected at the time of agreement, but at the time of registration, the appellant was forced to pay a further amount of Rs.12,500 to the document writer directly. He was informed that the documentation charges collected was utilized for providing photocopies of prior documents.

3. Apart from the above, when the appellant approached the Corporation of Kochi for change of ownership, he found that there was a default of Rs.36,516 payable as property tax which included late fee also. The property tax represented the period prior to registration of the apartment in the name of the appellant which the builder had to pay. However, left with no other option, he paid the said amount also. In addition, an amount of Rs.20,700 had to be paid as maintenance charges of the apartment for the financial year 2011-12. A further amount of Rs.20,700 had to be paid towards maintenance charge for the year 2012-13. Rs.31,113 had to be paid towards electricity charges for the year 2011-12. According to the appellant, the maintenance and electricity charges extracted for the period prior to the handing over of the apartment comes to Rs.44,513, which he was not liable to pay. He claimed that he was entitled to recover the said amount from the respondents. According to him, he had paid a further amount of Rs.17,250 as maintenance charges for the period from April 2013 to November 2013 which also was not liable to be paid by him. The appellant therefore sought for an order from the District Forum permitting the recovery of the excess amounts paid by the appellant as stated above.

4. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. According to their version, as per the construction agreement the price of the apartment agreed upon, including land value was Rs.38,00,000. But, by the time the apartment was ready for registration, the Govt. had introduced Fair Val