BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD vs Hira Rani

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 13th March, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Case No. 32 of 92 in which the appellants here were the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE memo of appeal was presented before this Commission on 11.6.93; much after the period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order and therefore, an application u/ Section 15 of the Limitation Act has been filed by appellants for condoning the delay. We have treated this application as under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules. It has been mentioned by the appellants that the copy of the impugned order was received in the head office of the appellants on 21.4.93 and the decision to file the appeal was taken on 7.5.92; but the learned Counsel for the appellant was suffering from high fever from 6.5.93 to 20.5.93 and that the file was received by the clerk on 18.5.93 and therefore the memo of appeal could not be filed within the period specified under the Act. It may be noted that admittedly even on the facts stated by the appellant the copy was received on 21.4.93 but the memo of appeal could not be presented within thirty days even from that date. The grounds being mentioned for explaining the delay can not be accepted as valid and sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Moreover, it has been mentioned by the appellant in the petition that the learned Advocate for the appellant was suffering from high fever from 6.5.93 to 20.5.93. Bui the name of the Advocate has not been mentioned in the petition nor any paper has been produced to substantiate the same.

For these reasons we are not inclined to accept the plea being taken by the appellant for condoning the delay and the prayer for the same is accordingly being rejected and the appeal consequently stands dismissed.

BUT the case of the complainant is regarding the pricing of the house allotted to her. The grievance of the complainant is that initially the complainant was informed that the price of the Lower Income Group House No. 68 allotted to her was Rs. 45,000/ - only, but subsequently the opposite party -Housing Board has raised the price of the house to Rs. 72,000/ - and the Board is pressing for the payment of the balance amount in respect thereof. It is clear from the brochour issued by the Housing Board -opposite party that the price being fixed initially was only tentative and provisional and the price of the house was to be fixed finally on the basis of the actual cost incurred in the construction of the house. It has been held by the National Commission in the case of Gurinder Bedi v. Delhi Development Autority (1994) 2 CTJ 34 (CP) that the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) are not empowered to go into the question of fixation of price of the flats and that charging of escalated price does not fall within the definition of deficiency in service under the Act. The National Commission has reiterated its view recently in the case of A.A. Saigal v. Delhi Development Authority, (1995) 3 CTJ 311 (CP) (NCDRC). Thus charging of escalated price by the Housing Board -opposite party does not fall within the definition of deficiency in the rendering of service by the Housing Board and a case with regard thereto is not maintainable under the Act. Hence the District Forum has acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint with regard to the price of the house and giving relief to the complainant in respect thereof. Hence the impugned order can not be sustained and it is being quashed under Section 17(B) of the Act.

THERE is, however, no order as to cost. Order quashed.