National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Narendra Pal Singh vs Meerut Development Authority on 25 January, 2002
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, (Member)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant, Narender Pal Singh against the order of the State Commission dismissing his complaint filed against Respondent, Meerut Development Authority (MDA).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants had applied for a HIG House under on Hire Purchase basis being Ganga Nagar-II Scheme. The cost of the house was Rs. 3,40,000/- for which 10% of registration fee was paid in March 1990 and a house was reserved by MDA on 18.3.91 and the Appellant/Complainant deposited certain other amounts. The appellant was informed by MDA vide letter dated 20.7.91 that there were certain houses vacant, which were built under Phase I of the same scheme; if the appellant is willing to deposit the cost of house in lump sum, then he could be allotted the house at a reduced price. Earlier estimated price was indicated as Rs. 3,70,000/-. If this offer was acceptable to the Complainant then in that case he was to confirm in writing by 15.8.91. This was done while amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- was deposited by the Complainant after taking a loan; a further amount of Rs. 14,200/- was sought as lease rent on 2.11.91. The Appellant deposited Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 14,200/- being lease rent and Rs. 5,800/- being cost of extra land), possession of the house was also given on 30.11.91. When the Complainant approached the Respondent for execution of sale deed, he was told on 19.2.92 that the price of the flat allotted to him is Rs. 4,69,500/- and asked to deposit Rs. 99,500/-. It is in these circumstances that the Appellant approached the State Commission seeking relief by way of quashing the extra demand of Rs. 99,500/- by MDA and direction to the Respondent to execute the sale deed. The State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed the complain on the ground that the issues relates to escalation of cost which cannot be gone into by the consumer fora. It is against this order that the Appellant filed an appeal before us.
3. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that State Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it involves question of cost escalation. It is not so. Letter dated 20.7.91 is very clear. Cost of the house was Rs. 3,70,000/- which was paid; extra amount asked for also paid and possession was given to him. No additional demand was raised at any stage till the complainant/Appellant approached the Respondent for execution of sale deed. He also relied upon the tripartite agreement (Loan agreement) through which a loan of Rs. 2 lakh was raised to make full lump sum payment of Rs. 3,70,000/-. No where any provision of escalation is mentioned. State Commission erred in arriving at the conclusion it did hence the order of the State Commission needs to be set aside. On the other hand, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the order of the State Commission is as per terms of the allotment of the house and as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Order of the State Commission is correct, hence needs to be upheld.
4. We have gone through the material on record and find that they key of the case lies on the letter dated 20.7.91. Translated version of the letter would be as follows:-
"You had registered yourself for an H.I.G. House in phase II of Ganga Nagar Housing Scheme. Houses have been allotted, houses being available under the Ist Phase of the Scheme whose estimated price is less. If you wish to make cent percent payment in cash, they you can pay old price. If you are not able to pay in cash, then you would be liable to pay the same estimated price as is the estimated price in Phase II, details are as under:-
-------------------------------------------------------------- Class of House Earlier Estimated Price Now Estimated Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.I.G. Rs. 3,70,000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------
5. In our view two facts emerges from the letter. One that estimated price of houses under Phase I of the Scheme is less and secondly if you pay cent percent in cash, they you can pay old price". We see two anomalies First that the first above fact is not borne out by material on record. Cost of the house (and not the estimated cost) of an HIG House in Phase II as indicated to the Complainant is Rs. 3,40,000/- which is supported by Annexure I - Description Table House in Ganga Nagar. The price spelled out in the letter dated 20.7.91 is Rs. 3,70,000/-. How is Rs. 3,70,000/- less than Rs. 3,40,000/-; secondly on second count it is stated if cent percent price is paid then old price will be applicable. Old price is not indicated anywhere. What is indicated in letter of 20.7.91 is "earlier price". Be that it may, the Appellant has accepted Rs. 3,70,000/- as the final price; so we will not get into the question of two separate price, one less than the other. That has not even been agitated before us. In our view, in the body of letter dated 20.7.91, it is clearly spelled out, if you pay cent percent in cash, you can pay old price". There is not even a whisper about its being a tentative estimated price. Presumption in these circumstances is what is being asked is the final price. The Appellant/Complainant having deposited the demanded amount cannot now be asked to give more then the old price in this case. Rs. 3,70,000/-. It is true that consumer fora cannot go into the question of pricing, but what is being challenged is the terms of allotment. In the present case, MDA is trying to go behind the terms of allotment spelled out vide its letter dated 20.7.91 by asking for an amount to which under the terms of allotment, they are not entitled. For this mess, if anyone is to be blamed, it is MDA themselves. We find that the State Commission erred in its judgment and failed to differentiate the facts of the case from the question of competence of Consumer Fora going in the whole question of pricing. Appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and the Respondent, MDA is directed to execute the sale deed within a period of eight weeks without demanding any additional amount i.e. other than what has already been paid.