MAJOR LOKNATH JAGGI vs CHAIRMAN, BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THESE two revision petitions have been filed by both the parties before us against the order of the State Commission.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant, in response to an advertisement floated by Bhopal Development Authority (B.D.A.) applied for a flat being constructed/constructed by B.D.A., whose price was given as Rs. 3,35,000/-. Complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- on 18.8.1993 at the time of booking and agreed to pay the remainder amount of Rs. 2.85 lakhs in two instalments. This amount was increased by B.D.A. attributing it to cost escalation, charged some other amounts by way of registration charges, interest for delay amounts, etc. The possession of the flat was given on 14.12.1994 which according to the complainant was incomplete. Being dissatisfied on account of cost escalation (Rs. 47,750/-) levying of registration and interest charges and delivery of incomplete flat while charging full amount, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking various reliefs where proceeding ex parte against B.D.A. based on material on record. District Forum directed the complainant to approach Civil Court for getting relief with regard to cost escalation levied by B.D.A. yet granting relief to the extent of ordering refund of Rs. 6,313/- charged as interest for delayed payment by B.D.A., Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. Being dissatisfied with this order the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission who, after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the report of Commission appointed to ascertain the cost of repairs to the house ordered that the BDA refund Rs. 47,700/- charged as escalated cost with interest @ 18% from 23.1.1994 till the date of payment, Rs. 33,393/- as cost of repairs, as per report of the Commission, till the date of payment along with interest @ 18%, refund of Rs. 6,396/- relating to registration charges along with interest @ 18% from 8.12.1994. Two separate revision petitions have been filed by both the parties against this order.

It was argued by Major Jaggi on behalf of the complainant that the State Commission while granting reliefs has not granted compensation by way of interest for the amounts deposited by him and for delivery of an incomplete house. There is no merit in the revision petition filed by BDA as under in terms of the advertisement inviting applications for the allotment of Flats by BDA only one price i.e. Rs. 3,35,000/- was mentioned. Since this was a case of constructed flats the question of cost escalation in the year 1994 does not arise. He also argued that he has spent over Rs. 1 lakh on repairs to the incomplete flat delivered by BDA and what he has got is only Rs. 33,393/-. He has not been adequately compensated, hence, request for compensation in the form of interest on the deposited amount. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the B.D.A. that the complainant is not entitled to any relief vis-a-vis the cost of escalation. The allotment letter itself mentions that this price is tentative (approximate in the words of complainant). When the final cost was worked out, it worked out to more than Rs. 3.35 lakhs per flat and, thus, had to be recovered from the allottees which was done in the case. State Commission erred in granting this relief. Grant of Rs. 33,393/- by way of cost of repairs was not opposed. Accordingly, he prayed for modification in the order of the State Commission.

WE have perused the order of the District Forum and State Commission, material on record and heard the arguments. What we see is, it is correct that in the advertisement floated by BDA one cost of the flat was given but the contract starts from the allotment letter which specifically mentions the price to be tentative. In our view, the District Forum was right in its appreciation of our order in the case of Gurinder Bedi v. DDA, III (1993) CPJ 404 (NC), and deciding to relegate the matter to Civil Court. Hon''ble Apex Court has held in several cases that Consumer Courts cannot go into the question of costing of flats, hence, to this extent, the State Commission erred in granting relief by way of refund of Rs. 47,700/- charged by BDA as cost escalation, hence, set aside, as a consequence of which relief granted by the State Commission by way of refund of excess registration charges i.e. Rs. 6,396/- has also to be set aside as this relief was the off shoot of refund of cost escalation which has not been accepted by us, hence, both these reliefs granted by the State Commission are set aside. WE have carefully gone through the prayer of the complainant for grant of compensation by way of grant of interest for the deposited amount. He deposited the amount in instalments and got the possession in December, 1994 against his booking the flat on 20.9.1993. In our view there has been no delay in giving the possession which was linked with the payment of instalments by him. The point regarding incomplete flat has been gone into by the State Commission in detail who awarded the cost of repairs as worked out by Commission appointed for the purpose, along with rate of interest @ 18%, which in our view is adequate compensation for this deficiency on the part of BDA. Complainant is not entitled to any other relief. In the light of above discussions, revision petition of the complainant is dismissed and the revision petition led by BDA is allowed in part to the extent referred to/discussed above. Rest of the order of the State Commission is maintained. No order on costs. Ordered accordingly.