HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING & URBAN vs DR. RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA & ANR.

Dr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the Complainant, paid a tentative price of Rs.80,000/- for the allotment of MIG-II category flat, on 31.07.1996. The total price of the flat was Rs.4,00,000/-. The flat was to be delivered in the month of April, 1997. However, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority, (in short, ''HIMUDA'') offered the possession in the Month of March, 1998.

The Complainant inspected the flat and it transpired that there were various defects. The Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party dated 27.05.1998 with other reference letters dated 20.02.1998 and 15.04.1998. In the above said letter it was mentioned that: "Meanwhile, I have seen the flat which requires some repair (cracks in walls, painting of the welding in the windows, repairs of the broken floor surface in the rooms etc.). I was assured that repairs will be carried out shortly." He further mentioned that he was also entitled to a garage, but subsequently, the Complainant abandoned that claim.

It is also on the record that the Chief Inspector inspected the flat on 03.09.1998. He replied that there were no defects except some dust. The Complainant took the possession on 24.09.1998, on the basis of " as is where is basis" or otherwise he had to forego it. 2. It also transpired that the Respondent had changed the payment schedule unilaterally. Consequently, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ''District Forum'').

The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 18% per annum from 01.07.1997, till 18.09.1998 when the possession was handed over to the Complainant, along with costs at Rs.1,500/-.

An Appeal was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission''), wherein the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum except the garage for which there remains no dispute.

We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the Petitioner laid emphasis on the Terms and Conditions. The Condition No. 6 makes it clear that, "6.......Efforts shall be made to complete the scheme as early as possible, but this Pradhikaran shall not be responsible in any way in case of further delay in completion due to various reasons."

It was argued that due to unexpected heavy rains, the possession of the flat got delayed.

However, on perusal of the entire file, two deficiencies are quite discernible. It is difficult to fathom, why there was unilateral change of payment of installment schedule.

This tantamounts to unfair trade practice. Secondly, the flat was not delivered after the receipt of full amount. This is an act of deficiency. There is no evidence that there were heavy rains or intermittent rains.

The Petitioner is trying to make bricks without straw. It is painful and galling that for a small amount HIMUDA has to spend and indulge in vexatious, frivolous and expensive litigation. The practice that ''get the order from court'' should be replaced by the principle that ''we can do it without burdening the work of courts''. The Revision Petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.