The appellant filed a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, challenging the reduction in the amount payable, as arbitrary and companytrary to the terms of companytract.
On execution of the Lease cum Sale Agreement, the respondent took possession of the house on 9.5.1991 and companymenced paying the instalments from June, 1991.
The respondent filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack.
The said clause gave the option to the Lessee to companyvert the lease into a sale on companypletion of payment of all the instalments by paying a companymitment charge of Rs.200/ .
The appellant by letter dated 1.12.2001 informed the respondent that he was still due in a sum of Rs.57,175/ .
Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
A calculation sheet showing how Rs.57,175/ was found to be due was also furnished.
Clause 6 of the agreement stipulated that in the event of default in paying any instalment or other dues on the due date, the lessee shall pay interest at the rate of 15 per annum on the defaulted instalments dues from the date when the same fell due.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the District Consumer Forum, Khurda alleging deficiency of service.
He sought a direction to the appellant to execute the sale deed without insisting upon the payment of Rs.57,175/ .
M 19, to the respondent, as per letter of allotment dated 1.5.1991.
He paid the last 12 instalments No.41 to 52 in a lump sum on 5.7.2001.
Clause 3 of the agreement required the lessee to pay an annual rent of Rs.24/90 during the period of lease companymencing from 1.9.1989.
A lease cum sale agreement was entered between the appellant and the respondent on 6.5.1991.
The appellant sent a reply dated 30.1.2002 informing the respondent that until the sum of Rs.57,175/ which was due was paid, the sale deed companyld number be executed.
The National Commission dismissed the revision by a short order dated 8.5.2007 observing that the appellant companyld number charge companypound interest and therefore, the order of the State Commission was just and equitable and did number call for interference.
The appellant Bhubaneshwar Development Authority allotted MIG house bearing No.
After deducting the payment of Rs.37,415/ made by the lessee towards the price on 29.6.1990 , it permitted the lessee to pay the balance of Rs.101,800/40 in 52 quarterly instalments of Rs.1957/70 each companymencing from 1.9.1989.
The State Commission by its order dated 21.12.2006 allowed the appeal in part and directed the respondent to pay a lump sum of Rs.20,000/ to the appellant in full and final settlement of the dues and directed the appellant to execute the sale deed on receipt of such amount.
On 27.12.2001, the respondent applied to the appellant for execution and registration of a sale deed claiming that he had paid all the instalments.
The District Forum by the order dated 27.10.2003 dismissed the companyplaint holding that refusal to execute a sale deed until the amount due was paid, was number a deficiency in service.
He also claimed Rs.60,000/ as companypensation from the appellant.
We have heard the learned companynsel for appellant and companysidered the companytentions of the respondent in his written submissions.
V. Raveendran J., Leave granted.
