R S RAMA CHANDRA MURTY vs K VIRENDER REDDY

-THE petitioner was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

IT was the case of the complainant that he had booked two flats with a total ares of 2762 sq. ft. with the first opposite party and had made certain payments to the extent of over Rs. 16 lakh. It was his case that he had booked a flat @ Rs. 675 per sq. ft. along with separate payment for other amenities and car parking. The complainant had paid Rs. 11,32,150 as on 30. 10. 2001. Certain payments were also made to opposite party No. 2. The complainant was aggrieved by the fact that the rate was increased. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed, which was allowed by the State Commission in following terms: "in the result the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to allot Flat No. C-206 by taking the price @ Rs. 675 per sq. ft. and adjust the amount of Rs. 9,70,000 towards the cost of the said flat and refund the balance amount within a period of six weeks from today with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of last payment made by the complainant till the date of payment. The opposite parties are also directed to register the flat in favour of the complainant within a period of six weeks from today by collecting the necessary registration charges from the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for delay in delivery of possession to the complainant together with a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards costs. Time for compliance six weeks. "

This order was passed on 31. 3. 2007. In pursuance of the above order, when the opposite parties decided to charge the rate, directed to be paid by the State Commission for an area of more than 1454 sq. ft. The complainant filed an execution petition that he is entitled to pay only 1454 sq. ft. whereas the stand fo the opposite party was that he is liable to charge the rate directed by the State Commission for an area of 1683 sq. ft. Since the area of the flats was to be verified, the State Commission appointed Local Commissioner, whose report is on record. Based on that report, State Commission has passed the order that the area for which the respondent is entitled to charge the rate directed to be payable by the petitioner/complainant should be an area of 1539 sq. ft. which is based on the report of the Local Commissioner. Aggrieved by this order, this Revision Petition has been filed before us. We heard the petitioner, R. S. Rama Chandra Murty, who is present in person and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that the conclusion of the State Commission is based on the Local Commissioner''s report which has taken into consideration, the common area like corridor, lift, gymnasium, etc. It is by now well settled proposition that it is not the area given to the individual for which the builder has to charge, but it would be more than that, which includes the common area as well on a certain proportionate basis. If based on that premise the State Commission has passed the impugned order, we see no ground to inerfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission, in view of which we see no merit in this Revision Petition, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.