N K N Sinha vs BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 16.11.2001 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna allowing the appeal and setting aside order of District Forum dated 24.4.1995 whereby the respondents/opposite parties were directed to execute conveyance deed(s) of the plot(s) allotted to petitioners/complainants.

FACTS giving to this revision are that 30 Doctors including petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum inter alia, alleging that in the year 1980 they were allotted different plots by respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 15,000/ - per Katha. However, at the time of execution of agreement(s) in May, 1980, it was inserted therein that settlee has to pay price fetched by other plots in the vicinity as a result of auction and this offer would hold good for a period of 180 days. In the year 1984, the respondent No. 1 issued letters to the petitioners demanding price of allotted plots at the rate of Rs. 33,072.30 per Katha on the basis of offer given under sealed tender for G.C. Sector at Lohia Nagar within 180 days of the date of execution of said agreement(s). Alleging deficiency in service, the petitioners sought direction to respondent 1 to execute conveyance deed(s) in their favour. Complaint was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noted above. Aforesaid order of State Commission (copy at pages 1 to 5) would show that appeal was allowed holding that, (i) dispute raised by the petitioners involves pricing of plots allotted to them which cannot be gone into under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act); and (ii) the relief granted by District Forum could not have been allowed under Section 14 of the Act. Controversy between the parties centres around the fact whether respondent No. 1 was justified in declining to execute the conveyance deed(s) in favour of petitioner(s) in respect of the plots allotted without payment of additional price based on the price of plot allotted to Dr. Ashok Kumar/Dr. Jitender Kumar, by them. In our view, this controversy does not involve the pricing of plots, as held by State Commission. Further, after insertion of clause (e) in Section 14(1) by Act of 50 of 1993 w.e.f. 18.6.1993 it was within the competence of District Forum to allow the relief of the kind granted, it being case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1. We are, thus, unable to agree with the view taken by State Commission that District Forum could not have granted the relief which it did.

COPY of agreement dated 19.5.1980 admittedly executed between the parties is placed at pages 27 -31. Submission advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1 was that the price indicated in the agreement was only tentative and petitioners were liable to pay at enhanced rate on which plot in the vicinity was auctioned to Dr. Jitender Kumar/Dr. Ashok Kumar. In support of this submission, our attention was drawn to clauses 4 and 21 of the said agreement as also order of the Supreme Court dated 10.8.1989 (Copy at pp. 48 and 49) Clause 4 runs as under : ''That the total cost indicated above is according to present estimate and hence purely tentative. Increase in the cost of development or due to increase in cost of land acquisition or due to any decision/award of Court of Law or legislation shall be payable by the settlee either in instalment or in lump sum within the period decided by the Board. The settlee shall under no circumstances be entitled to demand any accounts relating to the cost or to question or dispute it and this shall be fixed by the Board in its sole discretion and the cost of commercial plot cum residential so fixed shall be binding on the settlee.'' Clause 21 states : ''That the settlee shall have to pay the same price fetched by our plots in vicinity as a result of auction. This offer will hold good for a period of 180 days.''

PURSUANT to the order dated 16.1.2002 Dr. N.K. Sinha has filed affidavit on 2.4.2002. It was pointed out on behalf of petitioners that plots in G.C. Sector are neither in the vicinity of plots of the petitioners nor were they sold in public auction or respondent No. 1 even led evidence to that effect. Further, said order of Supreme Court did not indicate that the plot which was allowed to be partitioned between Dr. Jitender Kumar and Dr. Ashok Kumar, was actually sold in public auction by respondent No. 1. In said affidavit dated 2.4.2002 it has been emphatically denied that the plots of petitioners are in the vicinity of G.C. sector or that the plot in that sector allotted to said Dr. Jitender Kumar was sold in an auction. To be only noticed that the said order of Supreme Court does not state that the plot in G.C. Sector whereof partition was permitted was sold to Dr. Jitender Kumar/Dr. Ashok Kumar in public auction. In this backdrop, by invoking said Clause 21 the respondent No. 1 cannot demand additional price with interest as a condition to execute the conveyance deed(s) of the allotted plots in favour of petitioner(s). State Commission had, thus, acted with material irregularity in allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint and the impugned order deserves to be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act. For the foregoing discussion, the revision is allowed, impugned order dated 16.11.2001 set aside and order dated 24.4.1995 of District Forum restored. Respondent No. 1 will execute the conveyance deed(s) in favour of the petitioner(s) and two other complainants who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.