R. KESHAVA MURTHY Vs. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of one and the same order dated 13.12.2006 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission') in appeal No. 19071 2005 vide which the appeal against the order dated 10.10.2005 of the Additional District Consumer Forum, Urban District, Bangalore dismissing the complaint of R. Keshava Murthy has been allowed. The order passed by District Forum has been set aside and the opposite parties have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,33,000 to the complainant with interest . 12% p.a. from the date of payment by the complainant till realization. While Shri Keshava Murthy, the complainant has filed this revision petition No. 1116/2007 seeking possession of the house allotted to him as also for a direction to the opposite parties to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 2,33,000 paid by him ; the opposite parties i.e. Karnataka Housing Board and, its Manager have filed RP/1 148/2007 seeking setting aside of the order of tha State Commission.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in our discussions, we will refer Shd Keshava Murthy, the petitioner in RP/1 116/2007 as the complainant and the Karnataka Housing Board and its Manager, the petitioners RP/1 148/2007 as the opposite parties. Brief facts of the case are that

(3.) The complainant registered an application with the opposite pa ' for the allotment of a houce on payment of Rs. 10,000 on 28.7.1993. T1 house being house No. SHIG 'A' 85 (1st floor) at Yelahanka was allotted him vide letter dated 29.11.1993. It was stated in the letter of allotment that a sum of Rs. 75,000 was to be paid before 28.1.1994. However, the complainant failed to comply with this requirement and remitted a sum of Rs. 1,20,750 on 12.9.1996, almost two years after the due date. Subsequently, on 20.7.1998, when the opposite parties forwarded a draft lease-cum-sale agreement for its completion and return within 30 days, the complainant again failed within 30 days, the complainant again failed to comply with the same. It had been stated in the letter dated 20.7.1998 that the complainant was required to pay the balance cost of the property viz., Rs. 3,52,250 together with interest ) 18.5% p.a. Option was also given to him to pay the amount on monthly equated instalments @ Rs. 6,648. However, without any reference to the terms of payment offer made to him, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,02,250 on 27.8.1998 and requested the opposite parties to recalculate the amount as stated in the lease-cum-sale agreement. In order to accommodate the complainant, the opposite parties vide their letter dated 24.9.1998 advised the complainant to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement on payment of the defaulted amount with interest but again there was no response. This offer was renewed on 24.2.2000 which again failed to evoke any response from the complainant. Finally, vide their letter dated 26.2.2001, the opposite parties directed him to pay the balance amount with the penalty of Rs. 5,000 within a period of 10 days and execute the lease-cum-sale agreement failing which it was stated that 'they would be constrained to cancel the allotment'. The complainant even thereafter failed to pay the balance amount and did execute the lease-cum-sale agreement and the allotment, therefore, was cancelled by the opposite parties on 28.7.2001.