ABHILASHA GUPTA vs U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

THE complainant, by means of this complaint, has claimed interest on Rs. 4,40,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 1.1.1994 to 31.5.1996. She has also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,49,537/- as excess amount realised by U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad, besides a sum of Rs. 4,749/- as enhanced registration fee paid by the complainant.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied, in pursuance of a scheme floated by the opposite party in October, 1991, for a two room small semi-finished house of Type Design No. 501 consisting of one - bed room and one drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen, toilet and verandah on 71 sq. mts. of plinth area on 248 sq. ft. of lease hold land. THE total cost was indicated as Rs. 4,40,000/- under self-financing scheme No. 91 C at Mangal Pandey Nagar Yojna I, Meerut. THE complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 27.11.1991. According to the complainant the house was to be allotted within six months of the final date of payment for registration with deposit of Rs. 40,000/- to enable the allottee to keep a watch on the quality of construction of the house during the construction. This was not done by the Avas Vikas Parishad and after a lapse of 5 years by letter dated 31.1.1996 corner plot No. 101 was allotted to her. THE complainant was required to pay 10% of the cost as it was corner plot. 10% lease rent was to be payable on the total cost of the land on demand by the Avas Vikas Parishad which was paid by the complainant on 26.4.1996 amounting to Rs. 10,315/- including certain other charges. THE opposite party was negligent by not alloting the house in time so that the complainant could not keep a watch on the construction of the house. THE house was completed on 31.5.1996, the construction of which was started on 1.12.1991. According to the complainant a sum of Rs. 80,197/- has been realised by the Avas Vikas Parishad as enhanced cost of the house which he had deposited. THE complainant is not liable to pay any increase in the cost of the house because it was the fault of Avas Vikas Parishad of having not completed the house within the time bound frame. According to the rates of PWD, this house should not have costed more than Rs. 2,70,000/- after construction. THE total cost of the house alongwith land will be Rs. 3,60,000/- including the corner charges. According to the complainant she had to pay more amount towards registration as the same were increased during the intervening period. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party, inspite of the fact that a registered notice was sent to the opposite party which was not received back unserved. Hence service was presumed sufficient. However, during the course of proceedings, when the case was ordered to proceed ex parte, an application was moved for time to file written statement. No application for setting aside ex parte order was moved. Hence this application for time to file the written statement was rejected. The opposite party should have got the ex parte order set aside and only thereafter it could have been allowed to file written statement. Thereafter the opposite party did not participate in the proceedings and absented itself from the proceedings.

Now we have to consider as to whether the claim put forward by the complainant is justified and what reliefs she could get.

THE first point which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant is that on account of delay in construction by the Avas Vikas Parishad, the cost of the construction has increased and the complainant had to shell out a sum of Rs. 80,137/- which the Avas Vikas Parishad was not legally entitled to charge and this amount should be refunded. It may be observed that it is now a settled law that the escalation in price or pricing of the constructed house or developed land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. THE District Forum or the State Commission cannot go behind the pricing which has been done by the Development Authorities. If the allottee/complainant feels that the cost of construction has risen to an abnormally high figure, then it may refuse to accept the same. Moreover, there is always a clause in the brochure that if the cost of construction is increased, then the value of the property shall also increase which shall be paid by the allottees. Thus we find that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to go beyond the pricing. THErefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim refund of any amount on account of the enhanced cost or other expenses which he had to bear on the registration of the house etc. Thus the complainant cannot get any refund of the amount which he has spent in the registration or paid to the Housing Board towards enhanced cost of the house. Now there remains one question whether there was any deficiency on the part of the Housing Board in not constructing the house within a time bound period. The complainant has alleged that the house was to be allotted within six months of the registration, but the same was allotted after five years. No doubt there is a deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party. Moreover, it is a self financing scheme and the house is to be constructed from the amount paid by the complainant. The complainant had deposited the entire cost of the house of Rs. 4,40,000/- by 11.2.1994. She had also to pay interest on delayed payment on the last two instalments. Thereafter she also paid the enhanced cost. When the last instalment was paid on 11.2.1994, six months'' period can be allowed to the Housing Board to complete the house, but in the present case the possession of the house was delivered on 31.5.1996. Therefore, the Housing Board will have to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 4,40,000/- with effect from 1.9.1994 to 31.5.1996 as the possession was delivered on 1.6.1996. Thus the complainant can only get this relief and she is not entitled to any other relief. Order The complaint is decreed partly and the opposite party is directed to pay interest at the rae of 18% per annum from 1.9.1994 to 31.5.1996 on a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/-. The complainant is not entitled to any other relief claimed. In view of partial success and failure, the complainant shall bear the cost of expenses. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint partly allowed.