A P HOUSING BOARD vs K SRI HARI REDDY

EVEN on second call, none appears on behalf of the petitioners. We have heard learned Counsel for the respondents.

THESE Revision Petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 8. 8. 2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, in First Appeal No. 492 of 2006, etc. The State Commission, after considering the various contentions raised by the parties, arrived at the conclusion that the A. P. Housing Board ought to have adhered to Regulations 23 and 24, which provide for fixation of the price of the land as well as cost of construction. To find out whether the said Regulations were followed or not, the State Commission remanded the matters to the District Forum. The District Forum was directed to dispose of the matter within 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. Against that order, these Revision Petitions are filed contending that with regard to the fixation of the price by the Housing Board, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction.

It is to be stated that as an absolute law, it cannot be said that the Consumer Fora would have no jurisdiction with regard to the fixation of the price by the builder because the same depends upon the facts of each case. This is to be decided in context of Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as under: "deficency" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. "

HENCE, if there is specific statement made by the builder that the price would be as prescribed in the brochure or other literature, that is binding to the builder and if that is not followed, it would be deficiency in service. Further, with regard to the statutory body, it is required to follow the Act, Rules or Regulations. If Regulations specifically provide the method of fixing the cost of land as well as construction, then that procedure is required to be followed. If that is not followed, then it would deficiency in service as provided under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act. A statutory authority is required to perform its duties as per the law, which includes Rules or Regulations. If there is a breach of the said Rules and Regulations in fixing the price of land and cost of construction, it would be a deficiency in service and, hence, the complaints are maintainable. In this view of the matter, the State Commission rightly remanded the matter to the District Forum to conduct de novo inquiry after giving opportunity to the parties to decide whether statutory Regulations were adhered to or not while fixing the price of land and cost of construction and whether there was deficiency in service committed to that extent.

HENCE, the remand orders passed by the State Commission in Appeals, do not call for any interference. In this view of the matter, these Revision Petitions are dismissed without deciding whether the delay of 50 days in filing these Revision Petitions is requird to be condoned or not. The District Forum shall decide the matters as early as possible. R. P. dismissed.