M.P.Housing Board vs ASHOK CHANDRA VARSHNEY

THESE four revision petitions arise out of the two orders of the State Commission allowing the appeals filed by the complainants and dismissing the two appeals filed by the petitioner against the orders of the District Forum which had only partially allowed the complaint.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainants had registered four different H.I.G. houses in 1991 with the petitioner Board at a cost of Rs. 3 lakhs with a proviso that this cost can go up by 10%. Delivery schedule was of 18 months as per terms of allotment order. Since the petitioner violated both the conditions i.e. by charging higher price than 10% of the indicated price of Rs. 3 lakhs and delivery of possession was given on 16.2.1995 after a delay of about 3 years, the complainant moved the District Forum for appropriate reliefs alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner. The District Forum after hearing both the parties while refusing to go into the question of pricing, awarded interest @ 18% for the deposited amount for the period 23.5.1993 i.e. when 18 months period expired till 16.2.1995 when the possession was delivered. On an appeal filed by the complainant, the State Commission directed that enhance/escalation of the cost of house be limited to 10% of the original cost indicated and refund the excess with interest @ 15% from the date of payments till the date of refund. It is againt this order that the petitiner, MP Housing Board, has filed this revision petition. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is true that in the advertisement there was a clause to limit the cost escalation to 10% of the quoted price but it was not there in the letter of allotment, hence not binding on the petitioner. State Commission erred in this regard. It was also argued by him that the period indicated for handing over possession was tentative - hence they cannot be bound down to the period of 18 months.

In Revision petition No. 688/88 it was a question of corner plot for which 10% extra was chargeable and secondly original allotment being on self-financing was converted into Hire Purchase Scheme - as the complainant could not pay the last instalment in time.

WE have seen the material on record and heard the arguments and find that in R.P. No. 688/98, it was a case of corner plot has been raised for the first time. WE are quite clear that no new plea can be raised at this stage. This was not their case before the District Forum or State Commission. Similarly, we see nothing on record to substantiate this contention of the petitioner about the change of scheme to hire purchase in R.P. No. 688/98. We see on perusal of scheme that it did contain a provision "There is a possibility of 10% escalation in the above said price" i.e. Rs. 3 lakhs. Any variation at the time of allotment, can be easily termed as "Unfair Trade Practice" done arbitrarily and is set aside. The parties are bound by the terms. We see in this case that petitioner is trying to wriggle out of it to the detriment of the complainant which cannot be sustained. In this regard the order of State Commission cannot be interfered with. With regard to the order of the State Commission, we find that in the instalment''s payment schedule, forming part of the schedule, there is a clear indication of handing over possession in 18 months but we see some merit that there could be some delay but it has to be reasonable - not three years. In this regard following this Commission''s order in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, we are inclined to grant two years'' period for completion of works hence in this case interest shall be payable from 23.11.1993 to 25.2.1995 @ 18% as directed. Only to this extent order of the District Forum upheld by the State Commission is modified. Rest of the orders of both the lower Forums are upheld. Revision is allowed only to the extent mentioned above. No orders as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.