M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party in CC.2/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam, is the appellant.
(2.) The respondent in this appeal, who is the complainant, had purchased a MIG Type of house in neighbourhood scheme at Nagapattinam, from the opposite party, for which, he had paid even the revised cost of Rs.1,08,000/- and pursuant to the same, house was also handed over to the complainant, on 6.11.1991. Despite the fact, the entire amount was paid, taking advantage of the fact that the order reads tentative costs, the opposite party was claiming enhanced amount, which was challenged in OP.1/98, where, an order has been passed in favour of the complainant, which was challenged before this Commission in AP.87/2001, wherein, this Commission has modified the order, issuing direction the Housing Board, to issue notice as far as land costs is concerned, negativing the other claims, and on payment of that land cost, directing the opposite party to execute the sale deed.
(3.) As per the direction, the opposite party claimed a sum of Rs.37,934/- as well claimed a sum of Rs.1,14,063/- as revised land costs, as per the letter dated 7.7.2006, that is against the order of this commission. Since the opposite party failed to execute the sale deed, execution proceedings also filed, where, a direction has been issued to execute the sale deed, which was challenged before this Commission in R.P.39/2008. As per the observation made by this Commission, a Demand Notice was issued, claiming enhancement, against the order passed by this Commission in AP.740/2005, which was disposed, as per the order in AP.87/2001, in which, both the complainant and the opposite party are the parties. After the disposal of LAOP case by the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam and as per the direction of this Commission, the complainant if at all entitled to pay only a sum of Rs.18,111/- and the opposite party should execute the sale deed. The opposite party instead of collecting that amount, issuing Demand, insisted to pay more amount, namely Rs.1,08,000/-, unnecessarily and unjustifiably. Thus, levelling negligent and deficiency in service, this complaint came to be filed, seeking direction against the opposite party not to demand anything on revised tentative cost, to give same benefits as given to the party in AP.740/2005, regarding the enhanced land cost without interest and for compensation for mental agony etc.,;