Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Secretary vs S.P.Gupta

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.7.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 749/1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a Duplex house in Shastri Nagar Housing Scheme, Ghaziabad. THE cost of the house was disclosed as Rs. 4,26,022/- which was deposited by the complainant on different dates as mentioned in the complaint. THE lease amount was also deposited in 1994 and he obtained possession of the house in the year 1994. He was allotted house No. E 382 and has been delivered possession of the same. THEreafter by letter dated 8.8.1995 the complainant was informed that the price of the house has been increased and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,07,049/- as cost to be deposited by 31.7.1995. THEre was no such agreement for payment of increased cost. THE complainant is not liable to pay this increased cost. THE complainant has prayed for as sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment. Opposite party has alleged in the written statement that the possession was given on 15.11.1994. The amount of increased cost will have to be deposited alongwith interest.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that the cost should not have been increased by the Development Authority. The District Forum also ordered for compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to strike off the increased cost which is being charged by the Development Authority. LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party, complainant, has argued that after the possession has been delivered the opposite party cannot increase the cost of the house. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case Housing Board, Haryana v. Kartar Singh etc. of Hissar, I (1995) CPJ 7 (NC). In this case it was held by the National Commission that under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act the pricing policy cannot be challenged after allottee has taken possession of the house. It has further held that it has been the considered view of the Commission that the question of pricing of the flat by Housing Authority or Board is not a consumer dispute. In the case referred to above, the National Commission has specifically held that the pricing policy cannot be challenged after the allotment has taken place. This is not the case here. Here the price has been increased after the possession has been delivered. The enhanced price was not intimated to the complainant before he took possession of the house. The increase in the present case is about 20% of the original price. The original cost of the house was Rs. 4,26,022/- and the cost has been increased by Rs. 1,07,049/-. Thus we find that the increase of cost is not marginal. The cost has not been increased on account of the cost of the increase in land which happens only when an award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is made by the Civil Court and the prices are increased. Had that been the case, then the Ghaziabad Development Authority would have been justified to increase the cost till the registration of the sale deed was completed. But in the present case the houses were completed and the cost could have been calculated by the time the possession of house was to be delivered to the complainant. The houses were ready before the possession was given. As a matter of fact the increased cost should have been intimated to the complainant before giving possession because that could have been done by the Development Authority. There is no evidence on record to suggest that before handing over possession of the house, Ghaziabad Development Authority intimated the increased cost of the house to the complainant.

IT is not the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority that the costing was not available before the possession of the house was delivered. Thus we find that here the dispute is not with respect to the cost of the house but is with respect to the fact as to whether the increased cost can be realized from the complainant after the possession of the house was delivered to him. If the complainant would have been intimated about the increase in the cost before taking possession, then he might have refused to accept the possession especially when the cost was increased by 25%. A person who purchases a house for Rs. 4,26,000/- cannot anticipate the increase in the cost to the extent of 25%. Therefore, after handing over the possession of the house to the complainant, the Development Authority cannot be allowed to charge the enhanced cost. Thus, we find that the order and judgment of the learned District Forum are perfectly right and they need no interference. In the judgment of the District Forum it has been mentioned that plot No. E 372 was allotted to the complainant. Actually it is house No. E 382 which shall stand corrected. Order

THE appeal is dismissed and the order and judgment of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.