State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman, Kshb And 2 Others vs Kiyyumma P.P And 3Others on 19 April, 2016
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.245/13 JUDGMENT DATED:19.04.2016 PRESENT : JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
The Chairman, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Assistant Secretary, : APPELLANTS O/o Executive Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Kannur Division. The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Kannur Division. (By Adv: Sri. S. Shanavas) Vs. Kiyyumma P.P, W/o Late Koya, D4-49, Kairali Nagar Housing Colony, Thottada, Kannur. Abdul Nazar P.P, W/o Late K. Koya, D4-49, Kairali Nagar Housing Colony, : RESPONDENTS Thottada, Kannur. Nazeera P.P, D/o Late K. Koya, D4-49, Kairali Nagar Housing Colony, Thottada, Kannur. Raseena P.P, D/o Late K. Koya, D4-49, Kairali Nagar Housing Colony, Thottada, Kannur. (Repts.1,3 & 4 by Adv: Sri. S. Reghukumar) JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.185/2005 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur challenging the order of the Forum dated February 06, 2013 directing the opposite parties to execute the assignment deed in the name of the complainants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Koya on receipt of Rs.32,080/- with interest.
2. The case of the complainants as testified by PW1 the deceased first complainant and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-
The deceased first complainant had entered into an agreement with the opposite parties to purchase a plot No.D4-49 with a house in Kairali Nagar Housing Colony under working journalist quota for a consideration of Rs.1,58,182/-. Before entering into the agreement first complainant paid Rs.60,779/- as initial deposit. As a working journalist, Rs.20,000/- was given by the Government as subsidy at the time of executing the agreement. As per clause 6 of the agreement the first complainant should pay Rs.50,000/- together with 12.5% interest per annum as EMI of Rs.618.50 for a period of 15 years and the remaining amount of Rs.27,383/- shall be paid in lump immediately after a period of one year from the date of agreement with interest. As per clause 5 of the agreement first complainant will pay the above amount to the Board together with interest at 15% per annum in instalments and thereupon first complainant is entitled to get the sale deed of the property and building. Clause-9 of the agreement provides that board is entitled to refix the value of the property taking into account the enhanced compensation awarded by the Courts and Tribunals as the LAR case is pending first complainant had paid the entire instalments without any default. At that time LAR case 330/83 was pending before the Sub Court, Thalassery. The Board has agreed that on final disposal of the LAR case the land value will be enhanced to the amount equal to the enhanced value of land. There will not be any increase in price as the building is constructed prior to the date of agreement. The deceased first complainant paid Rs.1,50,722/- and Rs.20,000/- was allowed as subsidy since he is a working journalist. Thus after paying Rs.1,70,722/- the complainant approached the opposite parties for registering the conveyance deed. But the opposite parties were not ready to execute the sale deed. Land acquisition cases had been disposed off in 1993 re-fixing the land value at Rs.2,500/- per Cent. The opposite parties have not carried out any development work in the entire housing scheme. Therefore opposite parties are not entitled to any interest or cost accrued after 1993. Meanwhile Government has provided a one time settlement scheme to the Kairali Nagar Housing Scheme and accordingly opposite parties issued a letter on December 18, 2004 stating that after deducting penal interest and defaulted interest total amount to be paid is Rs.36,399/-. First complainant paid Rs.36,400/- and requested the opposite parties to execute the sale deed in respect of the plot in favour of the first complainant. But the opposite parties again issued a letter on April 26, 2005 demanding Rs.2,62,160/- on or before May 10, 2005 as additional land value. The demand notice issued by the opposite parties is illegal and unsustainable. Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. First complainant filed the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to execute the sale deed and claiming compensation. As the first complainant died his legal heirs are impleaded as supplemental claimants 2 to 5.
3. Opposite parties are M/s Kerala State Housing Board represented by its Chairman, Executive Engineer and Assistant Secretary. They in their version contended thus before the Forum. It is admitted that the plot with the house having No.D4-49 in Kairali Housing Scheme had been allotted to first complainant under working journalists quota at a tentative cost of Rs.1,58,182/- which was handed over to the first complainant on November 07, 1986. The amount remitted by the complainant at one time settlement was only as tentative cost. Complainant has to pay additional land value awarded under the land acquisition case. The opposite parties can execute the sale deed only on clearing all dues to the board. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the complainants the first complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts.A1 to A7 and on the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked before the Forum. Thereafter first complainant died. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the amount due from the complainants was only Rs.32,080/- and directed the opposite parties to receive the same and execute the sale deed. The opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. Heard both the counsels.
6. The following points arise for consideration:-
Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
7. It is admitted that first complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for purchasing plot No.D4 having an extent of 49.209 Sq.meter (5.16 cents) with a house therein for Rs.1,58,182/- under working journalist quota on November 07, 1986. It is not in dispute that first complainant paid Rs.60,779/- as initial deposit and Rs.20,000/- as subsidy given by the Government. The term of the agreement is that first complainant should pay Rs.27,383/- after one year from the date of agreement with 15% interest and Rs.50,000/- should be paid in monthly instalment of Rs.618.50 for a period of 15 years. The price of the property with building is purely tentative and bound to be revised later. First complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1,50,722/- and Rs.20,000/- was allowed as subsidy. Under one time settlement scheme the complainant was directed to pay Rs.36,399/- and he paid Rs.36,400/-. The case of the complainant is that opposite parties refused to execute the sale deed inspite of payment.
8. The counsel for the appellant argued that clause 9 of agreement provides that opposite parties are entitled to re-fix the final price of the property and building therein and that including the enhanced land value and the development work done in that property complainant has still to pay Rs.2,62,160/-. First complainant as PW1 testified that he was residing in the residential building even before agreement and the board has not done any work on the building. Opposite parties did not produce any documents to prove the alleged development work done by them. Therefore complainant is bound to pay only the proportionate enhanced land value. Ext.B1 letter dated March 19, 1993 shows that complainant had to deposit Rs.32,080/- towards enhanced land value.
9. Forum has directed the complainant to pay Rs.32,080/- to the opposite parties with interest at 9% from April 01, 1993 and on such payment the opposite parties are directed to execute the sale deed in the name of the complainants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Koya. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT V.V. JOSE : MEMBER VL.