Thereafter, the respondent issued letter dated 6.4.1999 indicating therein that the appellant is required to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,57,482/ .
Please numbere that I require a letter indicating the balance amount to be paid so that I can avail loan from my office and send you the payment.
The State Commission rejected the appellants plea for award of interest on the amount deposited by him and observed Since the amount has been fixed as provisional at the time of issuing advertisement and subsequently companyt has been raised on account of the escalation and the said amount has been paid by the companyplainant, the companyplainant is number entitled to get interest on the said amount as claimed in the companyplaint.
The National Commission also held that the companypensation awarded by the State Commission was just and proper.
The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the State Commission was dismissed by the National Commission vide order dated 9.9.2004.
He was allotted under S HIGA Flat No.37, First Floor.
Though the Petitioner had paid the amount as per allotment letter dated 6.4.99 a further amount of Rs.1,57,482/ was demanded which was also paid by him on 29.4.99 and the sale deed was registered.
That letter reads as under From SRINIVASA MURTHY, QR 9/TYPE IV, TELECOM QUARTERS, T.O. COMPOUND, JUHU ROAD, MUMBAI 400054 To The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board, KHB Metro No.1 Dn, BANGALORE 560064.
In the allotment letter issued on 29.11.1993, the tentative companyt of the flat was shown as Rs.3,40,000/ .
The appellant is estopped from questioning the demand of additional companyt because he had accepted the terms and companyditions embodied in letter dated 29.11.1993 without any objection and, later on, he voluntarily sought change of the mode of purchase from lease cum sale basis to outright sale basis.
He also companyveyed his willingness to pay the balance amount required for that purpose.
The Appellant companyld number clam interest 18 p.a.
During the interregnum, the respondent suggested to the appellant that for the purpose of registration of the sale deed, the price of the flat be shown as Rs.4,31,918/ so that he will be required to pay registration charges on 81 of the total companyt.
on the basis of earlier decisions of this Commission.
which was in tune with the decision of the apex companyrt in the case of GDA Vs.
He took the possession on 19.5.99 which was promised to be given in 1994 Since the State Commission had already awarded interest 12 p.a.
It was enhanced from Rs.3,40,000/ to 4,35,000/ and further to Rs.4,83,000/ .
The companyt of that flat was shown to be Rs.5,23,232/ .
This is to request you kindly permit me to change the purchase of the above allotment from LEASE CUM SALE to ABSOLUTE SALE.
As per the advertisement, the flat was to be ready for occupation by December, 1994 but the companystruction of the flat was companypleted only in 1998 and possession thereof was delivered to the appellant on 19.5.1999.
The time schedule fixed for companypletion of the flat was also tentative and possession of the flat was handed over after companypletion of companystruction and ancillary works.
The National Commission agreed with the State Commission that the companyt indicated in the allotment letter was tentative and the respondent had the right to revise the same and further that the appellant was number entitled to companyplain against the companyt mentioned in the revised allotment letters because he had voluntarily sought change in the mode of purchase.
In the meanwhile, the appellant sent letter dated 14.12.1998 to the Executive Engineer of the respondent with the request that he may be permitted to change the mode of purchase from lease cum sale basis to outright sale basis.
He further argued that the respondent was number entitled to arbitrarily change the mode of allotment from self financing scheme to outright sale scheme and charge higher price without paying interest on Rs.3,40,000/ deposited by him in furtherance of the initial allotment.
I shall await an early action on my request.
He further argued that the State Commission and the National Commission companymitted grave error by refusing to direct the respondent to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,57,482/ with interest.
I am willing to pay the balance amount required for this purpose on receiving a letter from you for this purpose.
This fact has number been disputed by the OP.
Dear Sir, Sub Allotment of House at YELAHANKA 5 PHASE SHIG FF Bangalore Metro Division I ALLOTMENT CODE 210 288 37 Request to purchase the above under ABSOLUTE SALE DEED.
The appellant companyveyed his acceptance vide letters dated 22.8.1998, 27.11.1998 and 15.5.1999.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Mumbai, 14 12 98 SRINIVASA MURTHY The respondent accepted the request of the appellant and allotted a flat to him in 3500 Multi tenaments at Vth Phase, Yelahanka on outright sale basis.
The English translation of the last letter is reproduced below TRANSLATION KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CONSENT LETTER I have been allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board Flat No.37 S HIG A F.F. on full price basis and I have paid the full value of Rs.533232.00.
The appellant accepted the revised allotment and deposited the remaining amount.
The application filed by the appellant for review of order dated 9.9.2004 was also dismissed by the National Commission vide order dated 14.3.2008, the relevant portion of which is extracted below Undisputedly, the tentative companyt of the flat booked was Rs.3,40,000/ .
Balbir Singh 2004 5 SCC 65.
Upon receipt of the revised allotment letters dated 22.1.1999 and 25.1.1999, the appellant sent companymunication dated 15.2.1999 to the Housing Commissioner of the respondent and protested against the alleged failure of the companycerned authority to take companynizance of the fact that he had already deposited Rs.3,75,750/ .
The appellant reiterated the grievance made in the companyplaint and argued that the demand of additional price by the respondent was only unjustified and the State Commission and the National Commission companymitted serious error by declining to entertain his prayer for award of interest on the amount already deposited by him and the additional companyt.
In the end, he argued that the respondent should be directed to refund Rs.1,01,314/ which was charged in excess of the companyt of the flat mentioned in the sale deed.
In response to an advertisement issued by Karnataka Housing Board respondent , which was published in the Times of India dated 14.7.1993, the appellant applied for allotment of a HIG flat in Vth Phase, Yelahanka under the self financing scheme.
S. Singhvi, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.3.2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short, the National Commission whereby the application filed by the appellant for review of order dated 9.9.2004 was dismissed.
