COMMISSIONER vs BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA

BRIJ Bhushan Gupta who is respondent herein was allotted house No.1/170 in Kota by the petitioner Board vide letter No.5181 dated 4.1.2003. Earlier the respondent had requested the OP/petitioner to convert the allotment of house on cash payment system and his request was recorded in the Inward Register at Sl. No.10049. The petitioner issued a direction to the respondent to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,62,257/- by single installment before 31.1.2003. On 27.1.2003, the respondent/complainant deposited the desired amount with the OPs/petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant requested for getting the sale deed of the house registered for which "no dues certificate " dated 27.11.2005 was issued by the petitioner Board. However, since the certificate of depositing the amount was not attached with the papers of the registry, the sale deed could not be registered by the OPs. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners, the respondent sent a legal notice and later filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The OPs filed their written statement and resisted the complaint. It was submitted by the OPs that the house to the complainant was allotted through lottery/draw for which allotment and possession letter dated 21.11.2002 was issued on the basis of Hire-Purchase System. In this letter the cost of land Rs.1,17,180/-, cost of additional land Rs.26,784/-, cost of construction Rs.4,46,620/- and corner charges of Rs.22,331/- were shown. As per the allotment letter issued, the complainant was supposed to get the possession after depositing a sum of Rs.2,68,200/- and thereafter he was required to pay 156 monthly installments of Rs.3,800/- each. Since vide his application dated 7.12.2002, the complainant had requested for allotment of house on cash down payment system while accepting the request in the letter which was issued in favour of the complainant on 4.1.2003, the amount payable was inadvertently written as Rs.1,62,257/- instead of Rs.4,62,257/- . In spite of having knowledge about this mistake, the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,62,257/- and took over the possession. The OPs further submitted that thereafter on 12.4.2007, they issued a letter to the complainant for depositing the balance amount towards the allotment of house. According to them, the total amount payable by way of cost of the house could not be Rs.1,62,257/- and it had happened because of an inadvertent mistake. Denying any unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint saying that the complainant was not entitled to get any relief in the matter.

AFTER hearing the parties and considering the evidence placed before it, the District Forum held that the mention of the amount of Rs.1,62,257/- in the letter of demand issued by the OPs, was an inadvertent mistake which had taken place at the level of OPs. Since the fact regarding depositing Rs.1,62,257/- as inadvertently demanded by the OPs had been concealed by the complainant, the District Forum held the complainant liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs but at the same time it also held that the opposite party was not entitled to get any interest on the amount of Rs.3 lakhs. In the circumstances, the District Forum accepted the complaint partially by granting the following relief to the complainant:- "Consequently, the present complaint of complainant is allowed partially against Opposite Party and it is ordered that on depositing the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by the complainant within the period of one month from the date of judgment, opposite parties would issue certificate about depositing the amount in favour of complainant and would get the sale deed of the allotted house registered. Remaining prayer of complainant is rejected. Keeping in view the facts of the case, both parties would bear their respective cost of complaint. "

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OP Board filed Appeal No.709 of 2009 challenging the same before the State Commission. The complainant also filed an appeal No.1039 of 2009 against this order. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 22.3.2012 dismissed both the appeals and upheld the aforesaid order of the District Forum. The petitioner Board has now filed the present revision petition challenging the impugned order.

We have heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It is the case of the petitioners that the Fora below did not appreciate the fact that the balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs had remained outstanding with the respondent for a long time but still they allowed only the principal amount of Rs.3 lakhs to be deposited by the respondent without interest. Learned counsel submitted that having adjudged that the balance of the cost remained outstanding, the question of not allowing the accrued interest on the balance amount could not have arisen since interest is part and parcel of the cost and the same should have been allowed by the District Forum and the State Commission.

WE have carefully considered the submissions made. Keeping in view the undisputed facts of this case, the Fora below were right in not accepting the plea of the complainant regarding registration of the sale deed only on the basis of the "no due certificate " earlier issued by the petitioner Board because the total price/cost of the flat could not have been Rs.1,62,257/- only which had been earlier deposited by the complainant. In view of this, they were right in directing the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs after which the petitioners were directed to issue certificate to that effect and register the allotted house. Learned counsel has confirmed that the respondent/complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 5.6.2009. Keeping in view the fact that the mistake had been committed by the office of the petitioner Board itself while issuing the earlier demand letter asking the respondent/complainant to deposit only Rs.1,62.257/- and the fact that the respondent/complainant later deposited the balance amount in accordance with the order of the District Forum even though he had filed an appeal before the State Commission, we do not see any case for interfering with the impugned order which is a fair and just order in the facts and circumstances of this case. Present revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is well-settled that the powers of this Commission as revisional court are limited in such cases and have to be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Keeping in view the fact that the entire confusion arose and the dispute in question emanated from the mistake committed by the office of the OP Board itself, the OP Board should have refrained from filing this meritless petition just to cover up their own fault and negligence while conveying the outstanding dues particularly after the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the OP Board. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to dismiss this revision petition which is devoid of any substance or merit in limine with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The cost shall be deposited with the "Consumer Legal Aid Account " within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order.

LIST for compliance on 3.12.2012.