This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Mr Arvind Patel against the judgment dated 17.04.2015 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 580 of 2007.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted a house by the respondent- Board vide allotment letter dated 01.02.1999, wherein the area of the plot was mentioned as 234.90 sq.mtr., and the total cost as Rs.4,65,950/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the total cost was paid by the year 2000 itself and the possession was also given to the complainant in the same year. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the measurement of the land was taken, it was only 221.43 sq. mtr. It was alleged by the complainant that corner charges of Rs.17,604/- were taken by the respondent/ Board, however, the plot was not a corner plot as confirmed in the decision given by the Civil Court, Jhabua in Suit no. 68 A of 2004 on 30.10.2004.

3. Accordingly, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jhabua (MP) (‘District Forum’). The complaint was resisted by the respondent – Board by filing written statement on the ground that corner charges were not taken by the respondent separately and area of the land though was only221.43 sq. mtr., but the same has been only charged from the complainant and the same has been clarified vide letter dated 17.02.2005 to the complainant. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and asked the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board to give the additional land of 13.47 sq. mtr.,to the complainant and refund the corner charges of Rs.17,604/- to the complainant.

4.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, preferred an appeal being FA no. 580 of 2007 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 17.04.2015 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.

5.     Hence, the present revision petition.

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that an amount of Rs.17,604/- was paid by the complainant as corner charges to the respondent, though the plot was not a corner plot as held by the Civil Court in suit no. 68 A/ 2004 filed by the complainant. The assertion of the complainant for less land area has been admitted by the opposite party and therefore, the complainant should be compensated for the less area.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Housing Board has stated that the complainant has been charged only for an area of 221.43 sq. mtr., as clarified vide letter dated 17.02.2005 to the complainant and the State Commission has also accepted the same. Therefore, there is no question of taking any additional payment from the complainant. The learned counsel also stated that no separate corner charges were taken from the complainant and the State Commission has given a clear finding in this regard. The learned counsel has further stated that there are still the dues of interest etc. on the complainant which he is required to pay to the respondent.

8.     We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. A specific question was put to the learned counsel for the complainant whether any separate receipt is available for the payment of corner charges to the respondent – Board. It has been clarified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no separate receipt is available with the complainant for making this payment. It is seen from the allotment letter that the total amount payable is mentioned as Rs.4,65,950/- and no break-up is mentioned. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that similar houses with land area of 234.90 sq. mtr., have been given to other allottees at lesser total price, however, no allotment letter of other allottees has been placed on record by the complainant. Therefore, the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be verified. The State Commission has also accepted the averments made by the learned counsel for the respondent before the State Commission that no corner charges were taken from the complainant. As no proof has been filed or shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of payment of corner charges, we find it difficult to accept the assertion of the complainant that corner charges was paid to the opposite party by the complainant. In these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the State Commission in respect of the corner charges.

9.     So far as the area of the land is concerned, both the parties admit that the actual area of the plot was only 221.43 sq. mtr., and therefore, there is a shortage of 13.47 sq. mtr. The assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party that the respondent has only charged for an area of 221.43 sq. mtr., cannot be accepted as the area mentioned in the allotment letter is 234.90 sq mtr., and no communication has been sent by the Housing Board till 2005 that the actual area was only 221.43 sq mtr., and the same was charged. Even no revised allotment letter with correct area was issued. It is also not clear if there was some amount outstanding against the allottee, how he was given possession without issuing any letter for pending payment. In the allotment letter, there is no mention of price per sq. mtr., and only the total price is mentioned, though the learned counsel for the opposite party states that the price per sq. mtr is Rs.795/- as mentioned in the letter dated 17.02.2005. It is very difficult to believe that a government agency like the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board will deliver the possession without taking the complete payment from the customers. All the payments as per the allotment letter were made by the complainant till January 2000 and then the possession was finally delivered in the same year. Any amendment in respect of allotment letter or other assertions made in the letter dated 17.02.2005 cannot be accepted as the same have been made only to strengthen the defence of the respondent as no clarification or demand has been issued by the respondent before the dispute arose. Accordingly, it is clear that the total price was charged for 234.90 sq. mtr., of land, whereas the actual land area is only 221.43 sq. mtr. Accordingly, the respondent Board is liable to refund the amount taken from the complainant for 13.47 sq. mtr., of land. This refund may be allowed at a rate of Rs.795/-per sq. mtr., as mentioned by the respondent Board in their letter dated 17.02.2005.

10.   Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed. It is directed that the respondent – Housing Board shall refund Rs.10,709/- (13.47sq.mtr., x Rs.795/-) to the complainant within a period of 45 days along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 11.10.2005 till the actual payment.