National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mukund Damodar Raghuvir vs Cidco Ltd. Cidco Bhawan on 2 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1487 OF 2008 (Against the Order dated 15/01/2008 in Appeal No. 1724/2006 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. MUKUND DAMODAR RAGHUVIR GURUKURPA, A-29,/1/2, SECTOR -3, SANDPADA, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 705 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CIDCO LTD. CIDCO BHAWAN CIDCO BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR, CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI - 400 614 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with Petitioner in person For the Respondent : MR. AJIT S. BHASM Dated : 02 Mar 2015 ORDER M. SHREESHA, MEMBER This Revision Petition, by the Petitioner, calls in question the correctness and legality of order dated 28.08.2007 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Appeal No. 1724 of 2006 - Shri Mukund Damodar Raghuvir vs. CIDCO Limited. The Petitioner/complainant also filed MA No. 1988 of 2007 in Appeal No. 1724 of 2006 seeking review of the order which the State Commission dismissed on the ground that it does not have powers of review.
2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the Revision Petitioner booked a flat under the Demand Registration Scheme 87 admeasuring area of 85 sq. mt. on 14.7.1987 and paid an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/-. In the year 1990, he was informed by the Opposite Party that the price had increased to Rs. 3,74,760/- and the Complainant/Petitioner had paid the same. Possession of the flat was given to him on 18.1.1994. It is the main grievance of the Petitioner that after possession he had got his flat measured and the area was much lesser than what was shown in the sale deed and that he has also paid excess price for the same. Thereafter, he approached the Opposite Party, who denied that there was any deficit in the area and also denied that the Petitioner had paid excess price. The District Forum observed that the affidavits filed by the two architects cannot be taken as evidence as the interrogatories were not answered by them but by the Complainant himself. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that CIDCO is entitled to fixation of price and the complaint was filed after three years and there has been no prayer for condonation of delay.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai.
4. The State Commission observed that the Appellant had taken the possession of the flat on 18.1.1994 and filed the Consumer Complaint on 16.1.1997, i.e. after a gap of 3 years and also observed that in view of the Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to fixation of price, the Authority has every right to ask for additional amount, if prices have shot up. With these observations, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal and also the Application filed for Review of the order as it does not have powers of review.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Maharashtra State Commission, the complainant preferred this Revision Petition before this Commission.
6. The main case of the Revision Petitioner is that on 14.7.1987 he booked a flat admeasuring 85 sq. mtrs. having 3 bed rooms, hall, kitchen plus additional toilet and paid earnest money at Rs. 10,000/- , the total price of the flat being Rs. 2,85,000/-. On 5.10.1990, CIDCO increased the cost of the said flat to Rs. 3,74,760/- to be payable in 8 instalments and the Petitioner has paid the said consideration between 8.11.1990 to 26.06.1992 in 8 instalments. Thereafter, on 16.6.1993 an allotment letter was given to the Petitioner and CIDCO increased the cost to Rs. 4,64,407/- + miscellaneous charges being Rs. 21,423/-. The Petitioner paid the increased cost between 30.08.1993 to 10.01.1994. On 26.12.1993, there was an intimation for execution of agreement and on 18.1.1994, the sale deed was executed.
7. The allotment letter dated 16.6.1993 clearly entails the details of the tenements allotted to the Petitioner herein as follows:
PRICE Area M2 Rate per M2 Amount (in Rs.) Tenement Attached terrace(if any) 76.900 5648.00 434331.00 Roof terrace (if any) 10.650 2824.00 30076.00 Open place (if any) Sub Total464407.00
8. It is the Revision Petitioner's case that Rs. 5,648/- per sq. ft. was charged for his flat, which is very high, without giving any extra amenities while others were charged Rs. 3,700/- per sq. ft. The Petitioner further submitted that the carpet area shown in the Floor Plan is 51.09 sq. mtr. which is less than the built up area of 76.90 sq. mtrs. He contended that there is a lot of wastage of place and he got less carpet area and that he filed the affidavits of the Architects, Mr. Abhay Todankar and Mr. P.S. Nadkarni to prove his case. Acting on his complaint dated 10.12.1996, the Respondent replied on 31.12.1996 that the Petitioner should submit the original challans and after processing the collected challans, the Respondent would process the same through their Accounts Section. It is the Petitioner's case that thereafter, due to shortage of funds, the Respondent did not refund the excess amount. It is also his case that on 17.7.1996, the Respondent has refunded certain amounts to some allottees in Sector 4, Sanpada who got one bedroom less due to area wasted by the lobby.
9. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to go into the question of pricing and stated that there was no suppression of rates from the public and different rates of Rs. 5,648/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 3,700/- per sq. ft. were charged for different tenements of 85 sq. mtrs and 18 sq. mtrs. respectively. He further denied that instead of 85 sq. mtrs. tenement of 76.90 sq. mtrs. was provided and submitted that the Petitioner had not taken into account the terrace area which comes to 10.65 sq. mtrs. and if one adds this area to 76.90 sq. ft., it would be equivalent to 85.55 sq. ft., which is mentioned in the allotment letter. He also denied that any excess rate was charged by CIDCO. In support, he drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed by them in which the terms of the Board Resolution No. 5046 dated 31.5.1990 are listed explaining the pricing of the Demand Registration Scheme. The rates have been kept at 10% higher for Vashi and Sanpada and the area for 18 sq. mtrs was for Low Income Group (LIG) and therefore, the price for Low Income Group (LIG) for 18 sq. mtrs. was charged at Rs. 3,700/- per sq. mtr. and the purchasers of area of 85 sq. mtrs (914.60 sq. ft.) belonging to the Higher Income Group (HIG) were charged at Rs. 5,648/- per sq. mtr. He filed the copy of the Board Resolution dated 31.5.1990 with respect to pricing of Tenements covered under Mass Housing Scheme of June-July, 1987.
10. Before we go into the merits of the case, we address ourselves to the point raised by the Respondent whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain matters with respect to the discretion of the Housing Authority in fixing the prices of the flats. We place reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116, between Bareilly Development Authority vs. Ajai Pal Singh & Ors., in which the Apex Court has laid down that substantial enhancement in cost and rate of instalments and alteration in other terms and conditions by the Authority at the time of allotment of the houses/flats is not arbitrary. The registered persons cannot, therefore, challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution the subsequent alterations by the Authority on ground of arbitrariness. In Sheela Wanti vs. Delhi Development Authority and other batch of cases, the Full bench of Delhi High Court held that the mechanics of Price Fixation have necessarily to be left to the executive unless there is hostile discrimination and arbitrariness which is not so in the instant case.
11. The Apex Court in DDA vs. Ashok Kumar Behal & Others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 135 laid down that the consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that fixation in prices of flats under different schemes cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and laid down the principle that Pricing of flats lies only within the domain of the Housing Authority. As pricing of flats by Housing Authority cannot be questioned under Article 226, it is clear that the scope of judicial review, with respect to fixation of prices, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is still more limited.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we hold that the State Commission and the District Forum have not committed any irregularity or jurisdictional error while passing the order in question.
13. However, we observe from the record that the Revision Petitioner had signed the agreement on 1.2.1994 under protest and addressed a letter to the Respondent-CIDCO, for refund of excess amount paid. In response, vide their letter Ref. No. CIDCO/SPC/DRS-87/P-I&II/90721, dated 31.12.1996, asked him to forward the original challans denoting excess payment to enable their Accounts Section to process the same. It is not clear whether or not the Petitioner sent the requisite documents. Under the circumstances, it will be open to the Revision Petitioner to pursue his representation dated 10.12.1996 and we are confident that the Respondent shall consider the same uninfluenced by dismissal of this Revision Petition on the question of Pricing.
14. Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with the above clarification, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER