M.P.Housing Board vs REKHA SAXENA

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where on a complaint being filed by the respondent/complainant, the complaint was allowed and an appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed.

BASIC facts of the case are admitted - hence for the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing them. The only point at issue is, can the Consumer Forums go into the question of pricing of house/plots/flats and if the answer is yes, then in what circumstances ? Admittedly in the instant case the advertisement floated for inviting application for allotment of houses contained a provision that the prices indicated in the advertisement are estimated and the final prices could go up by 10% but when allotment of the house was made, no limit of enhancement was mentioned while retaining the clause that the prices are only estimated. When the price of the house allotted to the complainant was increased from Rs. 3 lakh, as mentioned in the advertisement and the letter of allotment, to Rs. 3,98,933/-, the complainant moved the District Forum seeking several reliefs which were allowed. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission while the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed in the sense that petitioner was permitted to charge enhanced price but only limited to 10% of the originally quoted price. It is against this order that the revision petition has been filed.

It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Consumer Forum cannot go into the question of pricing of a house. He also argued that State Commission erred in limiting the enhancement of price to 10%. This figure of 10% was given in the advertisement and does not form part of the allotment letter. The order of the State Commission is bad in law, hence need to be set aside.

WE have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. Admittedly the figure of escalation in cost upto 10% was mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner being a public authority cannot get out from its own advertisement. It is true that no such ''percentage'', figure in the letter of allotment. It is our view that there needs to be a harmonious construction of all the material on record issued by the petitioner. A harmonious construction shall mean that in advertisement a limit was mentioned vis-a-vis the price escalation which is not denied. Even if there is no reference to any percentage restricting the price escalation in the letter of allotment, the figure held out to the prospective buyers through an open public advertisement is as much binding on the issuing authority as it shall be in terms of conditions of sale. It is true that Consumer Forums cannot go into the question of pricing but what we are doing here is not tampering with the figures of price-escalation but ensuring observance of the terms of offer/sale, on that there is no ambiguity. The order of the State Commission is as per settled position on the subject and does not call for any interference. The Revision Petition is dismissed. No order on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.