State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Najma Muzaffer Sultan vs Cidco on 10 August, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2007 Date of filing : 05/09/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 45 OF 1997 Date of order : 10/08/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MUMBAI SUBURBAN Mrs.Najma Muzaffer Sultan H-603, Gokul Galaxy Thakur Complex, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400 101. Appellant/org. complainant V/s. City & Industrial Development Corporation Thru the Authorised Agent Union Bank of India, Broviali Branch (W) Ved Bungalow, Opp. Dharmasee Road, Mumbai 400 092. Respondent/org. O.P. Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : Smt.Geeta Handa Khanuja, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Sameer Patil, Advocate for the respondent.
-: ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by dismissal of complaint by the judgement delivered by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban on 29/06/2007 in consumer complaint No.45/1997, whereby the complaint was dismissed along with other complaints by the common judgement, the org. complainant has filed this appeal.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
Complainant and four others had filed consumer complaints separately against the CIDCO, Government of Maharashtra Undertaking. It is the case of the complainant and others that the CIDCO in Navi Mumbai was going to construct housing tenements or units for the public at large. They had published advertisement in June 1987 styled as Demand Registration for Tenements in the Navi Mumbai. In response to this public advertisement, complainant and some others had filed applications along with registration fee. From time to time the complainant had made payment of Rs.2,50,000/-. At the time of registration of the application, she had deposited Rs.7,500/-. Application was made on 08/07/1987 and she was supposed to get tenement of 70 sq.mtr. and possession of the tenement duly constructed was to be handed over before rainy season of 1990. However, on 07/07/1992 a letter was sent to the complainant and other consumers by the CIDCO that the cost of the flat would be decided looking to the price of land and cost of other materials. CIDCO also unilaterally decided to enter into a Hire-Purchase Agreement and decided to sell flats to the flat purchasers on total cost basis. According to the complainant, this was unfair trade practice on the part of CIDCO and it also amounted to deficiency in service. Complainant registered her objection with the CIDCO, but without taking cognizance of the objection, CIDCO told the complainant that she will have to pay Rs.10,222/- per sq.mtr. According to the complainant in 1996 she was informed that now the allotment of flat would be done at double the price. According to the complainant, CIDCO has given some tenements to other flat purchasers in the same area at 1993 rates, but CIDCO was demanding rates as obtainable in 1996. Complainants grievance was that CIDCO had taken away Hire-Purchase scheme unilaterally and decided to sell flats on outright purchase basis on payment of full cost of the flat. The complainant alleged that this was done by the CIDCO for profitable business by selling of flats. Hence, complainant filed consumer complaint with a prayer that CIDCO should be directed to give her flat at the agreed rate as per rates of 1993 and CIDCO should be restrained from selling of the flat in question for which she had made booking and had paid total amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.
CIDCO filed written statement and admitted that under its scheme titled as Demand Registration for Tenements in Seven Townships, in Navi Mumbai, about 57 persons had applied for getting flats. Out of them, complainant was one such applicant. From the beginning, CIDCO given understanding to all the flat purchasers, who were booking flats that final terms and conditions would be laid down by the CIDCO and flat purchasers would have to abide by the said terms and conditions. If terms and conditions were not acceptable, the flat purchasers could withdraw from the scheme and those who had withdrawn from the scheme were liable to be given refund amount with interest by the CIDCO. CIDCO admitted that because of many events and reasons, construction of those flats could not be completed and there was delay in making construction of the said flats. It was not deliberate delay and therefore, for delay CIDCO would not be held responsible to pay compensation. In the booklet issued by the CIDCO, CIDCO had given tentative price of flat, but that was not final price of the flat to which flats were being offered or sold by the CIDCO. At that time, design of the flat was not ready and tenders were not called for construction of the flats. So the price mentioned was tentative one and not final one. CIDCO pleaded that in 1991 there was tremendous increase in the cost of the construction and cost of building material because of Gulf War. The Maharashtra Government in 1992 issued a G.R. and directed that enhanced rates should be given to the building contractor and therefore, pricing policy was reviewed by the CIDCO and ultimately, rate was fixed @ Rs.10,222/- per sq.mtr. and was informed to the complainant accordingly. But, complainant was not prepared to pay the said rate. CIDCO, therefore, pleaded that they were not guilty of deficiency of any kind and therefore, complaint should be dismissed with costs.
Relying on the affidavits and documents placed on record, Forum below held that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of CIDCO in enhancing the price of the flats to be sold to the flat purchasers, who had registered their names under the payment of registration fee for tenements in Seven Townships in Navi Mumbai. The price was tentative and because of Gulf War and other circumstances, there has been tremendous increase in the cost of building construction and therefore, CIDCO had reviewed costing of flats and ultimately, CIDCO had directed the complainant to pay cost of flat @ Rs.10,222/- per sq.mtr. Therefore, Forum below held that the CIDCO was not guilty of deficiency in service. Forum below also held that at what rate constructed house or flat should be sold is the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors of the CIDCO and Consumer Forum has no authority in law to look into the pricing policy of Agency like CIDCO. In the circumstances, Forum below was dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this dismissal, this appeal has been filed by aggrieved complainant.
We heard Smt.Geeta Handa Khanuja, Advocate for the appellant/org. complainant and Mr.Sameer Patil, Advocate for the respondent/CIDCO.
It is true and we may agree with the Learned District Consumer Forum so far as it gave finding that pricing policy was not a justiciable act and Consumer Fora are not supposed to look into the pricing policy laid down by the CIDCO. The question before us is, if the complainant or appellant for any reason is not able to purchase the flat, whether CIDCO is permitted to retain the moneys paid by the poor consumer simply saying that the complainant is not ready to pay remaining charges of flat at the rate stipulated by them. In our view, if any flat purchaser or consumer is unable to pay escalated price of the flat, then at least they should have cancelled the allotment and refunded the amount deposited by the consumer or the flat purchaser with reasonable rate of interest. This was not done in the instant case by the CIDCO/respondent herein. Advocate Smt.Geeta Handa Khanuja for the appellant brought to our notice the fact that total amount paid to the respondent by the appellant between period 10/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 was Rs.2,33,084/-. So far, for more than 13 years and 10 months this amount is lying with the CIDCO and CIDCO is neither giving possession of the flat to the complainant nor is refunding the amount to the appellant.
In the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice the fact that appellant/complainant had not demanded refund of moneys to the CIDCO by sending letter to that effect and even in the complaint filed in the Forum below, appellant has not asked for refund of moneys, but was insisting that she should be given a flat by the CIDCO at the rates obtainable in 1993 i.e. pre-revised rates. However, in 1996 CIDCO had revised pricing policy and had decided to offer or allot flats at the rate of Rs.10,222/- per sq.mtr. and this was not acceptable to the appellant and therefore, she kept mum and she went on knocking doors of the respondent that she should be given flat at the pre-revised rate and she has cited 2-3 instances that one person was allotted flat at the rate of Rs.5,728/- per sq.mtr. on 31/10/1994 (to one Mr.E.P. Mathai) and then another person by name Mr.Narsian Vijay Kumar was also allotted at the same price flat in the same Sector and area at the same rate, but she was asked to pay double the amount. We do not want to enter into this aspect of the matter. Suffice it to say that appellant was not prepared to pay escalated rate as stipulated by the CIDCO/respondent herein. Therefore, respondent herein should have refunded the amount deposited by the appellant with reasonable interest and in not doing so by cancelling the allotment of the complainant and in not refunding the amount with interest, there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent hereon. It is for this reason, though in the original complaint or in the appeal memo, appellant has not asked for this relief, in the course of arguments, Advocate Smt.Geeta Handa Khanuja fairly submitted that at least her client should be given refund of moneys with reasonable interest. Advocate Smt.Geeta Handa Khanuja brought to our notice the judgement of the National Commission, wherein the Honble National Commission while deciding case against the CIDCO held that the CIDCO had even allowed compound interest @ 14% p.a. on the registration charges on realizing hardship of the allottees. So, it appears to be policy of the CIDCO to pay interest @ 14% p.a. as it clear from the judgement of the National Commission cited before us in the Original Petition No.273/1993 DRS-87 Applicants Association V/s. CIDCO, decided on 11/01/1995.
The moneys had been paid by the appellant to the CIDCO between period 10/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 and CIDCO has utilized this amount right upto today without refunding single pai to the complainant. It is for this reason we hold that the CIDCO is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Public Institution like CIDCO should not have resorted to such tactics, either they should have given flat to the complainant as per her demand or at least they should have refunded the amount with reasonable interest. But, CIDCO did neither and therefore, we are of the view that by allowing this appeal partly, CIDCO/respondent herein will have to be directed to refund the amount with interest @ 14% p.a. from the respective dates of payment made by the complainant/appellant herein. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal partly to give some solace to the harassed consumer like appellant herein. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Respondent/CIDCO is directed to refund all the amounts paid by the appellant to it with interest @ 14% p.a. from the respective dates of payment made by the appellant to the respondent till realization. Besides that CIDCO is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-
as cost to the appellant and bear its own costs.
3. We are not granting compensation because complainant herself has not agreed to the escalation price of the flat as notified by the CIDCO.
4. Amount of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by the appellant/org. complainant in the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban be refunded to the appellant/org. complainant forthwith with accrued interest, if any.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member