(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant applied for allotment of HIG House at Ramapuram in the month of May 1988 on "out -right purchase basis". In response to which, the petitioner informed the complainant on 24.1.1989 that the tentative cost of the house could be Rs. 2,20,000, In order to arrange resources to make the payment, the complainant/petitioner requested the petitioner vide letter dated 13.2.1989 about the final cost of the house, so that if the price is going to be much higher than the tentative cost, then he will have hesitation in accepting the offer. In response to which the complainant was informed that the final cost will be within 10% of the tentative cost. The complainant took possession of the house on 20.12.1990 after payment but on 18.9.1992, the petitioner informed that the selling price has been revised from Rs. 2,20,000 to Rs.2,21,700. The difference was paid along with interest, after which the petitioners refunded a sum of Rs. 13,248 towards refund of interest amount. Despite making the payments as demanded by the petitioner and having given the possession way back in December 1990, yet when the sale -deed was not being executed, a cornplaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to execute the sale deed immediately without insisting for any escalation cost and pay Rs. 10,000 towards deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000 towards cost. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition before us.
(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We like to produce para 5 of the order passed by the State Commission, which reads as under: