First Appeal No. 326/2013. Case: Kerala State Housing Board and Ors. Vs P. Ramachandran. Kerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 326/2013
Party NameKerala State Housing Board and Ors. Vs P. Ramachandran
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Meena C.R., Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. C. Mohanan, Advocate
JudgesK. Chandradas Nadar, Presiding Member and V.V. Jose, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationI (2014) CPJ 281 (Ker.)
Judgement DateFebruary 14, 2014
CourtKerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Judgment:

V.V. Jose, Member

  1. The opposite parties in C.C. No. 208/11 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod are the appellants herein, who are aggrieved by the direction of the Forum to execute the sale deed in respect of flat EF 8(a) 206 in favour of the complainant without collecting any additional amount within two months from the date of receipt of the order and cancelling the demand notice of Rs. 1,89,718 as per Ext. A(6) with future interest and penal interest. The case of the complainant in the above CC is as follows: Opposite parties are claiming an additional cost of Rs. 1,89,718 vide demand notice dated 3.3.2011, alleging to be the outstanding dues (i.e. difference in cost) for the allotment of flat. Subsequent to the claim the Opposite party is refusing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat allotted. The flat in dispute was allotted for a tentative price of Rs. 2,41,000 on 8.4.1992. He was asked to remit Rs. 96,400 as initial amount by way of final allotment letter which shows the cost of flat as Rs. 2,53,053 which is in excess of Rs. 12,053. Out of Rs. 98,000 remitted by the complainant Rs. 97,021 was adjusted to the value and balance was remitted in 162 monthly installments of Rs. 2,410 with interest of 15.5%. Possession was handed over on 2.12.2012 consequent of an agreement, in which the interest was enhanced to 16.5%. On 6.11.1999 2nd opposite party demanded Rs. 3,74,477 as Rs. 1,21,424 was the additional cost. For which the complainant sent a reply stating that the opposite parties are not entitled to ask for additional amount. Later on 3.3.2011 the 4th opposite party sent another notice demanding Rs. 1,89,718 towards the outstanding dues. Hence this complaint for setting aside the demand and to direct the opposite party to execute the sale deed in respect of the Flat No. EF 8(a) 206 with compensation and cost.

  2. The opposite parties filed version contenting that they are entitled to refix the final price taking into account the cost of development works and amenities undertaken. There were no land acquisition cases. The difference in cost is based on the actual expenditure incurred by the Board and is the difference between final cost and tentative cost. Notice dated 6.11.1999 mentioned Rs. 1,21,424 including interest of Rs. 63,548 as on 31.7.1999. They would have been issued the sale deed, if paid the due as per notice. The amount was hiked to Rs. 1,89,718 as on 3.3.2011 as it was not in...

To continue reading

Request your trial