National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Himachal Pradesh Housing vs Smt. Ranbir Kaur Kang on 16 September, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4893 OF 2008 (From the order dated 25.08.08 in Appeal No. 460/07 of the State Commission, HIMACHAL PRADESH) HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING ........ Petitioner (s) URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NIGAM VIHAR SHIMLA 171 002 Vs. SMT. RANBIR KAUR KANG .Respondent (s) W/O SH. RAJINDER SINGH SET NO. 1, OLD POST-GRADUATE CENTRE CAMPUS H.P. UNIVERSITY SUMMER HILL SHIMLA 171 005 HIMACHAL PRADESH BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. Y. PRABHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE For the Respondent : IN PERSON Dated : 16th September, 2009 ORDER
JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. Factual matrix are that Smt. Ranbir Kaur Kang, the respondent, was allotted a flat by petitioner authority under partial self-financing and partial hire-purchase scheme on 17.05.1999 with tentative cost of the flat to be Rs. 5,50,000/-. In terms of allotment, allottee was required to deposit Rs. 67,500/- that being 15% of the tentative cost (inclusive of interest) within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, failure of which would make allottee answerable to pay also interest in terms of clause 9 of the terms and conditions. Half-yearly installment of Rs. 53,000/- thereafter was payable by due date without interest or penalty. It is not in dispute that respondent made payment of Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money. The allotment letter issued to the respondent furnishes particulars of the payment schedule. Subsequently, there had been revision in costing of the flat by the petitioner authority and the respondent was accordingly informed about the final costing of the flat worked out by the petitioner authority to be Rs. 6,74,000/-, 75% of which was, however, payable before taking possession. Since respondent had already paid Rs. 2,47,500/-, in terms of the demand raised, was further required to pay Rs. 2,58,500/- towards 75% of the final cost. The respondent, however, due to her financial constraints moved petitioner authority to furnish particulars of the amount payable by her and also to determine easy installments. The authority having accepted move, fixed easy installments along-with interest and also furnished details of cost of the flat by their letter dated 17.07.2001. Possession of flat was made to the respondent on 13.06.2001.
The dispute arose thereafter, as respondent under impression that the allottees of similar description of the flat had been allotted flat at a cost lesser than the tentative cost communicated to the respondent filed complaint before District Forum. The relief sought by respondent in complaint was that as other allottees had been allotted flat for tentative cost of Rs. 5,30,000/-, tentative cost of the flat allotted to her being Rs. 5,80,000/-, additional cost of Rs. 50,000/- realized from her be refunded along-with interest.
As she claimed to have deposited Rs. 5,50,000/- before the complaint was filed before the District Forum, the complaint was controverted by petitioner authority. The District Forum, however, dismissed complaint holding that there were good grounds in case of respondent for fixation of higher tentative cost by petitioner authority. In appeal that was preferred, the State Commission, however, remitted matter to the District Forum with a direction to determine the issues as to whether the respondent was discriminated against other allottees of Category III Flats.
The matter was considered afresh by the District Forum and the District Forum upholding grouse of the respondent, directed petitioner authority to pay interest @ 13.5% p.a. on deposit of Rs. 2,47,000/- made by the respondent. The reasoning assigned by the District Forum for directing petitioner authority to pay interest on deposit was that though the flat was required to be completed by 31.03.2000 and possession was made over to the petitioner on 13.06.2001, petitioner was liable to pay interest as aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour with the State Commission, the latter authority having held similar views in the matter of discrimination of the respondent with other allottees.
Certain issues, however, merits consideration.
It is not in dispute that the period of completion of the flats was 3 years and the allotment of flat to the respondent was made on 17.05.1999. Since possession of flat was made over to respondent as early as on 13.06.2001, no delay in completion of the project can possibly be attributed to the petitioner authority and finding of District Forum on this score was against weight of evidence on the record. Though after taking possession of the flat respondent had been persistently reiterating that as she was to secure a loan from the University where she had been working, she took possession of the flat even though it was not habitable, this contention, however, did not find favour with the District Forum and State Commission also. Added to this, payments were made by the respondent in terms of the payment schedule furnished by the petitioner authority which did not envisage provision of interest on the deposits made by the allottees and in this view of the matter also award of interest on the deposits was not called for.
This fact cannot be lost sight of while determining the issue of discrimination with the respondent vis--vis the other allottees, that while respondent was an allottee of the year 1999, the other allottees, namely, Dr. Poonam Chaudhary and Sh. Dinesh Malhotra were allotted flats on 21.03.1999 and possession was offered to them sometimes in November, 2000.
As has been the case of the petitioner authority, the final costing of the allottee of the year 1999, which is the case of the petitioner was arrived at while charging interest @ 13.5% on the final cost which was also charged from the allottees of 1997. The working of the costing made out by the petitioner authority shows that the final cost for allottees of March, 1997 was Rs. 5,79,000/- while final cost for allottee of 1999 was Rs. 6,73,805/-, inclusive of interest on Rs.
5,79,000/- which was the final cost of the allottees of the year 1997.
The counsel for the authority would urge that this is the accepted method of arriving at the final cost and the interest of Rs. 94,805/- added with the tentative cost was only to work out the final cost of the subsequent allottees. That apart, in the matter of pricing of the house dwellings, the consumer fora are not ordained to adjudicate the issue. Both the District Forum and State Commission erroneously drew conclusion against the evidence on record that the tentative cost of the flat allotted to the respondent was Rs. 5,80,000/- though in fact it was Rs. 5,30,000/- only and complaint too was filed under this wrong impression. No case of discrimination, allegedly meted out to the respondent could be made out, the petitioner and other allottees of 1997 being not similarly situated persons who can raise valid grievance for discrimination. It is quite but natural that with escalation of cost, the tentative cost of the flat was likely to go higher with the afflux of time. Since it was a partial Self-financing Scheme, the amounts payable for this scheme was in terms of the allotment have been noticed earlier. The respondent could not have grievance more so in view of acceptance of final costing by her informing the petitioner authority for determination of installment.
The authority, in fact, considered the issue and permitted her payment of final cost in installments. The earlier finding recorded by the District Forum holding no case of discrimination was well reasoned, however, subsequent finding recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission was not passed on meticulous appreciation of the issues which fell for consideration before them. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and revision succeeds. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
J (B.N.P. SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Dd/2