Commissioner Assam State Housing Board Guwahati vs Manoj Kumar Adhikary

FIRST Appeals 546 -548 of 1993 are directed against the common order dated 18.9.93 passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in O.C. Nos. 4/91, No. 6/91 and No. 10/ 91. The appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission.

THE petitioners applied for allotment of plots for construction of houses under the Land Acquisition and Development Scheme at Madgharia, Mouza Beltola, District Kamrup, Assam in pursuance to the opposite party (appellant herein) inviting applications. In January, 91,theO.P.announced the names of 134allottees under different income categories. The petitioners noted the following deficiencies : (i) the price per katha of developed land (inclusive of interest on instalments) indicated in the allotment letter at about Rs. 75,000/to Rs. 85,000/ - was much higher than the prevailing price of Rs. 30,000/ - to Rs. 35,000/ - in the scheme area, whereas they were given to understand verbally atthe time of their filing of their applications that the cost would be amount around Rs. 45,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ -; (ii) conditions non -existent in the application form were unilaterally included in the allotment letter; and (iii) they were offered an area of land which is less than the norm of 1 and 1/2 Katha required for housing plot in the Gauhati City laid down by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and the Gauhati Development Authority. It was the opposite parties contention that additional conditions incorporated were only in the interest of the petitioner -allottees and that no verbal indication was given about the cost of the land. The opposite party also gave a statement of expenses incurred for the purchase and development of the land and administrative charges. The opposite party denied that the area of allotted plot did not conform to Municipal bye -laws and that the difference in the number of instalments in the payment of the price for different categories was discriminatory. The State Commission rejected a preliminary objection of the opposite party about the maintainability of the complaint by relying on an earlier judgment of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Garima Shukla & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC) Considering that the dispute was regarding price of the plots and two sets of accounts had been furnished by the contending parties, the State Commission ordered the constitution of a Committee consisting of a qualified Chartered Accountant, an Architect and a retired Chief Engineer of the State P.W.D. to enquire/examine the accounts and give their opinion. The Commission also referred the matter to the President, District Forum, Kamrup for making an attempt for amicable settlement. But no compromise was effected. The Commission also made a local inspection of the site on 1.3.92 in the presence of both the parties.

ON the basis of the findings of the aforesaid Committee, their own conclusions during the visit to the site and appreciation of contentions of both parties, the State Commission directed the opposite party to determine within a period of 45 days from the date of their order; (i) the price of each plot category -wise afresh after deducting, (a) an amount of Rs. 9,75,630.80 in the cost of earth filling, and (b) an amount of Rs. 6,02,094.25 in the cost of land, and (ii) equated monthly instalments such that the said instalment does not exceed 60percentof the allottees monthly income. The Commission also directed the allottees to form an association in terms of the allotment letter within one year from the specified dated of completion of payment of initial deposit by all the allottees.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before us. The respondent -complainant filed their reply version. The main ground taken in the appeal is that the Consumer Protection Act does not empower a Consumer Forum to interfere in matters relating to price fixation and that no relief was, in fact, prayed for by the petitioners in respect of the price or cost of the plot. This appellants have given the basis for their costing/pricing and pointed out that at the price derived after making deductions as per the impugned judgment, the appellants costs would never be recovered. It was mentioned that out of the original 16 petitioners before the State Commission, two had withdrawn their application forms. The respondent -complainants contended that they had prayed for relief by way of reduction in the price of land. We have gone through the available records. There was no appearance for the respondents through authorised representative or Counsel. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant -Board. It is now settled that matters relating to pricing may be adjudicated by Consumer FORA in cases where price is fixed by law or there is a deliberate or intentional act on the part of the seller of goods to take advantage of a higher price of the goods or there is a price dispute due to unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r)(1)(ix) of the Consumer Protection Act or there is an avoidable delay in the delivery of the goods resulting in a higher price of the goods. This flows from our judgments in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Deep Kishore Singh (Revision Petition No. 382 of 1993 decided on 3.5.94) 1986 -95 Consumer, 666 (NS), Housing Board, Haryana v. Kartar Singh & Others (Revision Petition Nos. 287 to 371 of 1992 decided on 8.11.94) I (1995) CPJ 7 (NC) and judgments of Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 373 of 1994 decided on 12.4.94) II (1994) CPJ 1 (SC) and Mohinder Pratap Dass v. Modern Automobiles & Anr. (Civil Appeal of 1994 decided on September 16, 1994) (1995) 3 SCC 581. In the instant case, however, there is no substance or evidence of any intentional hiking of the price of the plot on the part of the appellant -Board which can be taken as a deficiency in service. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the petition. No costs. Appeals allowed.