M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainant/ respondent, had purchased a flat, F3 Type flat, first floor, constructed and sold by the opposite party, as per the allotment order dt.20.5.85, for the total cost of Rs.1,30,000/-. As per the order, the complainant should pay the initial deposit of Rs.46000/-, within 21 days of receipt of the order, and pay the monthly instalment of Rs.1448/- for 8 years.
(2.) At request of the complainant, as per the letter dt.11.6.1985, hire purchase was converted into outright purchase, directing the complainant to pay the amount, excluding the initial deposit in 3 instalments. Accordingly the total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was paid on 12.5.1986 itself. Though the opposite party is bound to execute the sale deed, within 5 years, which expired on 12.5.1991, still they have not executed the sale deed. The complainant also occupied the property on 11.6.1985. The opposite party, instead of executing the sale deed, issued a demand notice belatedly, after 16 years, claiming interest for the defaulted payment, as if the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.58,857/-, which they are estopped from claiming. If at all they are entitled to claim interest, only for 11 months and 3 days, i.e., for the period 10.6.85 to 13.5.86, which is also not to be paid, because of the G.O.Ms.No.542 dt.11.4.86, whereas, the purchaser is entitled to payment of interest, when they have paid entire cost, and in this view, the complainant is entitled to interest for Rs.1,30,000/-, on and from 13.5.86. Despite repeated request, the opposite party has failed to execute the sale deed, though collected the amount, issued no due certificate, thereby caused mental agony, for which the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.25000/-. Thus seeking direction, to execute sale deed, and for the payment of Rs.25000/- as compensation, a case came to be filed before the District Forum.
(3.) The opposite party, admitting the allotment order, as well as the conditions available therein, opposed the complaint interalia contending, that as per the specific condition available, since amount has not been paid within 21 days, whereas amount was paid in piecemeal basis, the complainant is liable to pay interest, which was demanded, which cannot be termed as negligent act, that a communication was sent to takeover the possession of the property, paying the balance of interest, which was not responded by the complainant at appropriate time, that only for non-payment of the interest for defaulted payment, demand was made, not paid, resulting non-execution of the sale deed, which cannot be termed as negligent act, or deficiency in service, and that complaint is barred by limitation, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;