EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs D.SUSHEELAMMA

THIS appeal by the opposite parties is directed against the order dated 23.3.1995 passed by the District Forum, Mysore in Complaint No. 208/92 directing the opposite parties K.H.B. to execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the house allotted to her and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows : THE opposite parties allotted a house, the value mentioned in the allotment letter was Rs. 12,340/-. Subsequently the value of the said house was raised from Rs. 12,340/- to Rs. 19,497/- which was communicated to the complainant on 3.7.1979. An agreement came to be executed and the said allotted house was delivered to the complainant on 27.10.1980. THE complainant was give certain instalments to make payment of the said amount. THE complainant subsequently when approached the opposite parties seeking execution of the sale deed after the instalments were paid the opposite parties informed the complainant that she was yet to pay a sum of Rs. 9,113/-. If that amount were to be paid, they would be able to execute the sale deed. It is the grievance of the complainant that she was not liable to make payment of the said amount so demanded by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not file the version.

During enquiry the complainant filed the affidavit and produced certain documents.

THE District Forum on consideration of this material held that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not executing a registered deed of sale in favour of the complainant in respect of the house allotted to her and in that view, directed the opposite party to execute a deed of sale and register it in favour of the complainant and also to pay compensation in sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the representative of the respondents and perused the material on record.

THE admitted facts are that the house in question was delivered to the complainant in the year 1980. Subsequently the complainant made payment of the value of the house as per the allotment letter and sought execution of the registered sale deed in her favour. But the opposite parties declined to execute the sale deed unless the balance amount of Rs. 9,113/- was paid by her. The complainant has produced the letter of allotment. The letter shows that the value given therein was a provisional value of the house. The opposite party sought the final payment of the cost when the complainant sought the registration of a sale deed in her favour. The National Commission while considering such an aspect of the matter in Housing Board Harayana v. Kartar Singh etc. reported in I (1995) CPJ 7 (NC) held as under : "We are of the opinion that under the Consumer Protection Act, the pricing policy cannot be challenged after the allottee has taken possession of the house. It has been the considered view of this Commission that the question of princing of the flat by Housing Authority or Board is not a consumer dispute."

IN this regard reference can be made to Gujarat Housing Board v. Datania Amritlal Pulchand & Ors., F.A. No. 241/1991 d.d. on 7.10.1993 by N.C. III (1993) CPJ 351 (NC) it was held that if any amount has been illegally charged by the Housing Board, proper forum for the complainants is to recover from the Housing Board through a Civil Court.

HAVING regard to these principles of law, as laid down by the National Commission, we find the reasoning adopted by the District Forum in directing the opposite party to execute the deed of sale without collecting the final cost of a sum of Rs. 9,113/- from the complainant is erroneous and unsustainable. In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum, Mysore, in Complaint No. 208/92 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed. _____________