BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD vs Bedamo Devi w/o Sri Suresh Prasad Singh

THROUGH this petition purportedly under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Bihar State Housing Board ( to be referred as the Board ) seeks to assail the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patna ( in short, the State Commission ) in First Appeal No.613/2003. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bhojpur (herein to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 227 of 2002 by which the said District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant Smt. Bedamo Devi and held that the demand of Rs.1,04,228/- raised by Bihar State Housing Board from the complainant was totally unwarranted, illegal and beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the Board and the act of making such demand amounted to negligence and deficiency in service on the par of the Board. The District Forum accordingly quashed the said demand of the Board with cost of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission but without success. Hence this petition.

WE have heard Shri S Chandra Shekhar, Advocate, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Shri Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate, learned counsel representing the respondent and have considered their respective submissions. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint have been amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. However, we may simply note that the basis of the order passed by the fora below was that the complainant had paid the entire consideration of the LIG flat allotted to the complainant and even possession was handed over to her before its completion and it lacked the basic facilities which the complainant completed at her own costs and therefore, the Board could not raise any further demand. In the impugned order, though the State Commission in its para 13 noted the correct legal position that pricing policy and the determination of the cost / price of flat/plot lay within the domain and ambit of the Board and the redressal agencies had no role to play therein but still going by the fact that possession had already been handed over to the complainant on receipt of certain amounts and thereafter there was no demand made by the Board until the demand of Rs.1,04.228/- was made sometimes in 2001, it held that the said demand was not justified.

Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order on the ground that the fora below have overlooked the legal position that the fixation of the price of flat / plot was within the domain of the Board and that could not be questioned by an allottee of flat before the consumer fora. He pointed out that flat in question was occupied by the complainant after paying only the part of the cost which was tentative and the final cost of the flat was arrived subsequently and demand of Rs.1,04,228/- was raised. It is stated that even the full instalments as per the tentatively fixed price were not paid by the complainant either before taking the possession of the flat or afterwards. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent complainant supports the order passed by the fora below.

HAVING considered the matter in its entirety and the findings sought to be put forth on behalf of the petitioner who were ex-parte before the District Forum, we are of the view that order passed by the District Forum was based on one sided version of the complainant. We consider it expedient in the interest of justice that the plea in regard to the final costing of the flat which is sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner Board should be examined in all its possible details as also the question as to what amounts were paid by the complainant and what amount remained to be paid by her. This would require remand of the matter to the concerned District Forum. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the fora below are hereby set aside and complaint is remanded to the Board of the concerned District Forum for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner Board to file its written version of defence as also the evidence which the parties may like to produce in respect of their respective pleas. This will be subject to payment of Rs.5000/- to the respondent towards the cost of the proceedings. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 10th February, 2011, on which date the petitioner shall file its written version of defence and pay the cost. The District Forum is directed to decide the complaint afresh and expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.