<br /> Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the Opposite Party-MUDA to issue title deed in favour of the Complainant without claiming any “Escalation Charges”. The Complainant has also claimed damages of Rs.10,000/- and cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was duly served to the Opposite Party who appeared, filed Version and contested the matter. The Complainant has produced Xerox copies of number of documents and filed his affidavit. The Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Assistant Secretary of MUDA and produced the original file for perusal of the Forum. Heard the Learned Counsels for both sides.<br /> <br /> 3. At the out set, we may like to observe that this Complaint is misconceived. The Complainant has misconstrued the word “Escalation Charges” to that off “Final Price of the Site”.<br /> <br /> 4. Undisputed facts can be briefly summarized as under:<br /> The Complainant who was working as a Clerk in the LIC filed and application for allotment of a house under “Own Your Housing Scheme”. There is no dispute that such application was filed on 12.05.1992 bearing No.1659. There is also no dispute that the Tentative/Provisional price of such house was fixed at Rs.1,75,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.43,750/- as initial deposit. <br /> <br /> 5. It is also an admitted fact that the MUDA has issued a letter of allotment dated 18.09.1992 allotting house No.89 (MIG) to the Complainant stating that the approximate tentative/provisional cost of the house is fixed at Rs.1,75,000/-. It was also informed to the Complainant that as and when notice of demand is issued he will have to pay the balance amount in 3 installments.<br /> <br /> 6. There is also no dispute that the Opposite Party has issued demand notices and the Complainant has paid the balance amount in 3 installments as under:<br /> Sl. No. Amount Date Receipt Number<br /> 1. 43,750/- 16.07.1994 11027<br /> 2. 43,500/- 06.12.1994 11814<br /> 3. 44,000/- 21.02.1995 12048<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Hence, the tentative price of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid by the Complainant prior to 21.02.1995.<br /> <br /> 8. It is seen from the original record produced by the Opposite Party that the Complainant submitted an application seeking possession of the allotted house, even before fixation of the final price. He has also filed an affidavit dated 30.06.1995, and on the basis of such undertaking given by the Complainant, the possession was delivered as per letter dated 11.07.1995.<br /> <br /> 9. It is the case of the Complainant that he filed an application for issue of title deed on 13.06.2003 which was followed by reminders dated 18.05.2005 and 06.08.2005. Ultimately, the Complainant got issued legal notice on 10.10.2005, but there was no response from the Opposite Party. It is further contended that the Opposite Party has issued a notice demanding an amount of Rs.76,103/- dated 27.07.2005, but as per G.O. No.¹Ðƒ…/294/ÀÙÔڃ»Ñõ 2002 dated 12.05.2003, the Complainant is not liable to pay any escalation charges and interest thereon, as he has paid the entire amount according to the demand notices issued by the Opposite Party. Hence, the Complainant has prayed for allowing this Complaint. <br /> <br /> 10. The simple version of the Opposite Party is that the contention of the Complainant is false and the Complaint is not maintainable. It is also contended that there is no cause of action for this Complaint. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party has demanded the balance amount after the final price was fixed by the MUDA, for such house. As Complainant has given a letter of undertaking along with affidavit, he cannot seek title deed without paying the balance amount. Hence, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissing the Complaint. <br /> <br /> 11. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the Complainant has proved that the payment of Rs.76,103/- is towards “Escalation Charges”?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant further proves that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 3. What Order?<br /> <br /> 12. Our findings are as under:-<br /> 1. Points No.1 & 2 : Negative.<br /> 2. Point No.3 : As per final Order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 13. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- As almost all facts are admitted facts, we do not intend to reproduce the same or refer to the documents which are admitted by both parties. The following observations made in the documents, are relevant to decide the matter in dispute.<br /> <br /> (a) Complainant has produced Xerox copy of the letter of allotment dated 18.09.1992. In this letter, the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- is shown as “ƒ•Ñ¡Ô ¾ÙÄÙ/³Ñ³ÑÜőР¾ÙÄÙ (Approximate Tentative Price).<br /> (b) The Complainant moved an application requesting the Opposite Party to deliver possession of the constructed house on 01.07.1995. In connection with such application, he has also enclosed his affidavit dated 30.06.1995 which reads as under.<br /> <br /> A Xerox copy of the affidavit be kept in this file.<br /> <br /> ¹Ð¹Ð–Ù ÀÙÔÚÊÐÖ¤ÐÔ ¹Ð–Фѿ°ÀÐØ¸ì »Ñõ¸°‘Ѥи•Ð •Ð©å–ÐÏü ½®ÑÀвف¦ÐÔÅö (Œ ¾Ñö‘ý) ÊÐ÷³Ð ÀÐÔ¹Ù ÌÙց¸ ¦ÙÖÓ¡¹Ù¦ÐÔÅö Š.Œ.£. ÀЖÐþ•Ð ÀÐÔ¹Ù ÊЁ”Ùô:89 …•Ð¹ÐÔî »Ñõ¸°‘ѤЕРÀÐԁ¡Ö¤Ñ´ »Ð³Ðõ•Ð ÊЁ”Ùô:ŠÄý¼:212:Á:109 ¸¹Ñ‘Ð:18.09.1992, ¤Ð•ÐÔ ÀÐԁ¡Ö¤ÐÔ ÀЦѯ‘ÙÖ«å•ÐÔì, …•Ð¤Ð ƒ•Ñ¡Ô ¾ÙÄف¦Ð¦Ñ•Ð ¤ÐÖ.1,75,000/- –ÐÎйÐÔî »Ñõ¸°‘ѤБÙÜ »ÑÀд ÀЦѯ¤ÐÔ³ÙêÓ¹Ù. „•Ð¤Ù ‘ѹÐÖº¹Ð »Ðõ‘ѤРÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ƒ´ÀÐÔ ¾ÙÄÙ º–и°¦Ð¦Ñ–ЕÙÓ ÌіÐÖ »ÐÖ±þ Ìб »ÑÀд ÀЦѮЕ٠…•ÐìÅö ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ÊÑ÷¸°Ó¹ÐÀйÐÔî ºÓ®ÐÃÔ ƒÀБÑÆÐÁÃö¸¤ÐÔÀÐՕЧ•Ð ¹Ð¹Ð–Ù ÀÐԁ¡Ö¤Ñ—¤ÐÔÀÐ ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ÊÑ÷¸°Ó¹Ð ºÓ®ÐÃÔ ³Ð®ÐÀіÐÔÀÐՕÐÔ ´Ï•ÐÔ½¸¤ÐÔ³Ðê•Ù. ƒ•Ð¤Ù ¹Ð¹Ð–Ù ÊÐ•Ð§Ó ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ÊÑ÷¸°Ó¹Ð »Ð³Ðõ•Ð ƒÀÐÆÐô‘г٠…¤ÐÔÀÐՕЧ•Ð, »Ñõ¸°‘ѤЕÐÅö ƒ´ÀÐÔ ¾ÙÄÙ º–и°¦Ð¦Ñ–ÐÔÀÐÕÀФٖ٠¹Ð¹Ðî ÊÐ÷³Ð ¡ÀѾÑ직¦ÐÔ ÀÙÔÓÄÙ ¹Ð¹Ð–Ù ÊЕЧ ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ³Ñ³ÑÜőРÊÑ÷¸°Ó¹Ð »Ð³ÐõÀйÐÔî ºÓ®Ð¾Ùӑї ‘ÙÖÓ¤ÐÔ³ÙêÓ¹Ù.<br /> <br /> ÌіÐÖ ¹Ð¹Ð–Ù ÀÐԁ¡Ö¤Ñ—¤ÐÔÀÐ ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ƒ´ÀÐÔ ¾ÙÄÙ »Ñõ¸°‘Ѥи•Ð º–и¦Ð¦Ñ— …•Ð¤Ð ½–ÙÞ Í›ÐÔàÀЧ Ìб »ÑÀд ÀЦѮоÙӑї ½•ÐÅö ÊЕЧ ÀÙֽÖйÐÔî ¹Ð¹Ð–Ù »Ñõ¸°‘Ѥи•Ð ¹ÙÖÓ«ÓÊÐÔ ºÓ¯•Ð •ÐÔ ´–ÐÎÙÖÎЖї •ÙÓ ‘Ё´¹ÐÅö »Ñõ¸°‘ѤБÙÜ »ÑÀд ÀЦѮÐÃÔ ½•ÐìÎї¤ÐÔ³ÙêÓ¹Ù. ¹Ñ¹ÐÔ †–Ð ½¤Ù•ÐԑÙÖ«å¤ÐÔÀÐ ÀÐÔԛÐàϑٖ٠³Ð¼ï Á¤ÐԕÐìÀї ¹Ð®Ù•ÐÅö »Ñõ¸°‘ѤÐÀÐÕ ¹Ð¹Ð–Ù ÀÐԁ¡Ö¤ÐÔ ÀЦѯ¤ÐÔÀÐ ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ¤Ð•ÐÔì–ÙÖÏÊÐÃÔ ÌіÐÖ ¹Ðºî•Ð »Ñõ¸°‘ѤБÙÜ ³Ð–ÐÃÔÀÐ ¹ÐÈÐåÀйÐÔî »Ð®Ù•ÐԑÙÖÎÐüÃÔ ÌБÐÔÜÎÐüÀФї¤ÐÔ³Ñê¤Ù.<br /> <br /> 14. It is clear from the above affidavit, which is not disputed by the Complainant, that he was aware of the fact that he is liable to pay the difference amount after final price is fixed by the MUDA.<br /> <br /> (c) In pursuance of such request letter MUDA passed an order dated 11.07.1995 to deliver possession the letter reads as under:<br /> <br /> A Xerox copy of the same be kept in this file.<br /> <br /> ÀÙÔÚÊÐÖ¤ÐÔ ¹Ð–Фѿ°ÀÐØ¸ì »Ñõ¸°‘ѤÐÀÐÕ:•Ð©å–ÐÏü Œ ¾Ñö‘ý ½®ÑÀвف¦ÐÔ: 2 ÌЁ³Ð•ÐÅö ºÀÐÔó ÊÐ÷³Ð ÀÐÔ¹Ù ÌÙց¸ ¦ÙÖÓ¡¹Ù¦ÐÔ¯¦ÐÔÅö ºÁÔþˤÐÔÀÐ ÀЦѕЧ ÀÐÔ¹Ù ÊЁ”Ùô:MIG.89 ¦ÐÔ¹ÐÔî ÇõÓ:ÇõÓÀÐÔ´: „¤ý.¹Ð•Ñ ¤ÐÀЧ–Ù ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ƒ•Ñ¡Ô ¾ÙÄÙ ¤ÐÖ: 1,75,000/- –Ðϖ٠ÀÐԁ¡Ö¤ÐÔ ÀЦѯ¤ÐÔ³Ðê•Ù. ºÓÀÐÕ ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ƒ•Ñ¡Ô ¾ÙÄف¦Ð¦Ñ•Ð ¤ÐÖ: 1,75,000/- –ÐÎйÐÔî »ÑÀд ÀЦѯ ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ÊÑ÷¸°Ó¹Ð ºÓ®ÐÔÀЁ³Ù ÀÐÔ¹ÐÁ ÊÐÅöˤÐÔÀÐՕÐÔ ÊЧ¦ÐÔÈÙå. ƒ•Ð¤Ù ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔÔ »ÐÖ±þ »ÐõÀЦѱ•ÐÅö »ÐÖ±þ–Ùց¯ÃöÀѕÐ직•Ð, ƒ´ÀÐÔ ¾ÙÄف¦ÐÔ¹ÐÔî º–и»Ð¯ÊÐÃÔ ÁÎЁ½Àї¤ÐÔÀÐՕЧ•Ð, »Ñõ¸°‘ѤЕÐÅö ƒ´ÀÐÔ ¾ÙÄف¦ÐÔ¹ÐÔî ƒ¹ÐÔÀÙÖÓ¸ÊÐÃÔ ¾Ñ’ …¤ÐÔ³Ðê•Ù. „•Ð직•Ð ºÀÐÔó ÀÑÊБÙÜ ƒ¹ÐԑÐÖÃÀіÐÔÀЁ³Ù ºÓÀÐÕ ºÓ¯¤ÐÔÀÐ ÀÐÔԛÐàϑف¦ÐÔ ƒ•°Ñ¤Ð•Ð ÀÙÔÓÄÙ ƒ´ÀÐÔ ¾ÙÄف¦ÐÔÅö ÌٛÑà•Ð ÌбÀйÐÔî •ÙÓ ‘Ё´¹ÐÅö •ÐÔ ´–ÐÎÙÖÎЖї »ÑÀд ÀЦѮÐÔÀÐ ÈФдê¹Ð³Ù ºÀÐÔó ÊÐ÷³Ð ¡ÀѾÑ직¦ÐÔ ÀÙÔÓÄÙ ³Ñ³ÑÜőÐÀї ÀÐԹف¦ÐÔ ÊÑ÷¸°Ó¹Ð »Ð³ÐõÀйÐÔî † ‘ÙÎЖ٠¹ÐÀÐÔָˤÐÔÀÐ ›Ñ¼þ¹Ð³Ù ºÓ®ÐÄї•Ù.<br /> <br /> 15. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that the final price of similar houses has been fixed at Rs.2,51,103/. He further submitted that after deducting Rs.1,75,000/-, the Opposite Party was entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.76,103/-. In this context, the Opposite Party has produced in the original file, and a copy of resolution dated 12.07.1995 (a Xerox copy of the same be kept in this file). <br /> <br /> 16. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that the amount demanded by the Opposite Party cannot be called as “Escalation Charges or Interest thereon”. The Complainant has relied on a Notification dated 12.05.2003. This Notification is applicable only to cases where the prices have been escalated after payment of the amount. This Notification is not applicable to the amount payable by the allottee, after final price is fixed.<br /> <br /> 17. For the above reasons, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the Complaint is devoid of merit. Hence, points 1 & 2 are answered in negative and, we proceed to pass the following Order. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear the costs.<br /> 2. Anyhow, if Complainant pays the balance amount and other charges according to rules, he may seek title deed from the Opposite Party according to rules.<br /> 3. Give a free copy of this Order to both parties according to Rules.<br />