GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Kamal Kumar Goswami

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The complaint was allowed to an extent. On an appeal filed by the respondent/complainant before the State Commission, it allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant got reservation of one house for EWS under EWS Housing Scheme Vijay Nagar on 16.1.1989. On 17.7.1990 the complainant was informed that it is not possible to allot the reserved house to him for administrative reasons. On request for allotment of an alternative house, the complainant was allotted House No. F-105 under Nand Nikunj Housing Scheme on 20.12.1990, but conditions were changed. Cost of the house was increased to Rs. 40,250/- from 23,000/-, number of instalments to pay the amount was reduced to 20 from 40 and rate of interest on the amounts payable was increased to 12.5% from 8%. It is in these circumstances that a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint only to the extent that complainant would be entitled to interest @ 7% on the deposited amount from 17.6.1995 i.e. from the date possession was taken along with cost of Rs. 500/-. Not being satisfied with the reliefs granted, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission who after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to charge from the complainant the original price of the house on the same terms and conditions. If excess amount was found to be deposited, then the same was to be refunded by the petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a. Cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed. On the date fixed for hearing, petitioner was absent inspite of notice, respondent was present in person, hence the petition was dismissed in default on 10.5.2002. On an application filed by the petitioner for restoration, case was restored and next date of hearing i.e. 18.3.2003 was fixed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Again he was absent on account of personal difficulty. Respondent is present in person. We see no reason to accept any unsubstantiated/unsupported letter to adjourn the case on personal difficulty and go on to decide the case on the basis of material on record.

As per memorandum of revision petition filed before this Commission, main grounds for filing this petition are that the State Commission erred in touching the subject of ''pricing'', which is outside the purview of the Consumer Forums. Price of original flat at Rs. 23,000/- was estimated, rate of interest could be raised by the petitioner. On all these grounds, the order of the State Commission is wrong and need to be set aside.

WE heard the respondent/complainant and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not disputed. Only point involved is the price to be charged and terms and conditions to be imposed on the consumer after a change in allotment has been ordered for no fault of the allottee. In the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. R.P. Chawla, Revision Petition Nos. 547 and 548 of 1997, we have held that at the time of allotment of alternative plot/house/flat, the new allotment shall carry the same terms and conditions as existed for the original allotment. Nothing has been shown to us to change our view in this appeal. This was a clear case of allotment of alternative house to Economically WEaker Section (EWS) of society; the originally alloted house could not be given to him for administrative reasons. WE are also unable to sustain the argument of the petitioner that original price of the house placed at Rs. 23,000/- was estimated, nothing has been placed on record that there was any change in valuation of house allowed under original scheme to other allottees under that scheme. The order passed by the State Commission is as per law laid down by the Commission and calls for no interference. This petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be payable to the poor respondent/complainant by the petitioner. Revision Petition dismissed.