NARENDRA PAL SINGH vs Meerut Development Authority

THIS complaint is by Sri Narendra Pal Singh who applied for registration of a HIG house in Ganga Nagar-II Scheme of the Meerut Development Authority (for short MDA) on a monthly instalment basis (hire purchase basis) costing in all a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- by depositing a sum of Rs. 34,000/- as registeration amount on 14th November, 1990. A reservation letter dated 18th March, 1991 was issued by the MDA asking the complainant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- which he did on 30th April, 1991 alongwith a sum of Rs. 750 /-. Thereafter House No. A-40 was allotted to the complainant by the MDA through its letter dated 11th June, 1991.

THE complainant says that he received a letter dated 22nd July, 1991 from the MDA saying that though the complainant''s registration had been done for a house in Ganga Nagar Phase II Scheme yet he could be allotted a house in Ganga Nagar Phase I Scheme in which houses were available provided he agreed to payment of the price on cash down basis latest by 15th August, 1991. THE complainant says that he gave his consent for cash down payment to the MDA through his letter dated 13th August, 1991 and deposited a further sum of Rs. 86,000/- on 3rd September, 1991 through a Bank Draft dated 30th August, 1991. According to the complainant he had to take a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the LIC House Financing Ltd. in order to deposite the total price of the allotted house, namely Rs. 3,70,000/- and a tripartite agreement was entered into by the MDA and the LIC House Financing Ltd. on 9th September, 1991 which showed that the entire cost of the house was Rs. 3,70,000/-.

According to the complainant after he had deposited full and final payment of Rs. 3,70,000/- he received a letter dated 2nd November, 1991 from the MDA asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,200/- as advance lease rent for 90 years and also deposit non-judicial stam paper of the value of Rs. 10/- for execution of agreement between the parties. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 16th November, 1991 with the MDA. This amount included the sum of Rs. 14,200/- as lease rent and Rs. 5.800/- as the cost of extra land in die allotted house in Ganga Nagar Phase I Scheme. The complainant also says that after these payments and execution of the agreement a letter dated 18th November, 1991 was issued by the MDA to its Assistant Engineer to deliver possession to the complainant and that actual physical possession of House No. A-40 was given to the complainant on 30th November, 1991.

THE grievance of the complainant is that after he had completed the formalities and obtained possession of the allotted house after having made payment of the full price of Rs. 3,70,000/- and the cost of the extra land, he failed to get a sale-deed executed in his favour inspite of repeated approaches to the MDA and its officials for the purpose. THE complainant says that he was shocked to receive a letter dated 19.2.1992 from the MDA informing the complainant that the total cost of the complainant''s house was Rs. 4,69,500/- and that the complainant should pay the balance amount of Rs. 99,500/- latest by 20th March, 1992 failing which the complainant will have to pay penal interest. THE complainant says that the demand was illegal and arbitrary and that he wrote to the MDA about it on 24th March, 1992 saying that no further amount was due from him. Since the letter remained unreplied, the complainant addressed another letter dated 2nd May, 1992 to the MDA once again asking it to execute the sale deed. In reply, the complainant received a letter dated 7th May, 1992 from the MDA reiterating that the cost of the house was Rs. 4,69,500/- and that the complainant should deposit Rs. 99,500/-. The complainant then approached the Commission for relief through the present complaint.

ALONGWITH the complaint, which has been duly verified, 17 documents have been appended as evidence and the relief claimed in the complaint is that the MDA should be directed not to realise the illegal amount of Rs. 99,500/- from the complainant as price of the house and the letter of demand dated 19.2.1992 be quashed. The complainant says that the MDA be directed to execute the sale-deed of House No. A-40, Ganga Nagar Scheme in favour of the complainant and also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for mental tension and physical torture apart from paying a sum of Rs. 3,500/- towards cost of the proceedings. The MDA filed a written statement on oath. While the various facts asserted in the complaint have been accepted to be correct, it has been stated that the price of Rs. 3,70,000/- which had been paid by the complainant on cash down basis was a tentative one and that the complainant had undertaken to pay the actual cost when it was worked out and further that the escalation in the cost of the house was due to the increase in area from 200 sqr. meters at the time of registration to 284 sqr. meters of the house actually given to the complainant in Ganga Nagar Phase I Scheme as well as the increase in cost of building material. It has been pleaded that the grievance relating to pricing of a allotted house could not form subject matter of determination in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it did not raise any consumer dispute. It has also been pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever because no mental and physical pain was caused to him by the MDA. In the replication filed by him on oath the complainant has reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and has high-lighted the fact that the amount already paid by the complainant to the MDA included a sum of Rs. 5,800/- as cost of increase in the area of land as is clear from the receipt issued on its behalf in respect of the payment of Rs. 20,000/- by the complainant (Annexure 11 to the complaint) which mentions the amount of lease-rent of Rs. 14,200 / - and extra land cost of Rs. 5,800/-. It has been high-lighted that even according to the MDA the sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- represented the full and final cost of the house as it had been mentioned in the tripartite agreement, if regard is had to the facts appearing in it that the complainant (borrower) had already deposited with the MDA a sum of Rs. 34,000/- being the initial amount payable for registration of the complainant and a further amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- as part payment towards the purchase of the house under the self-financing scheme and that a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was being granted as loan towards payment of the price of the house.

A copy of the brochure has been placed before the Commission which shows that at item No. 3 it has been mentioned that the approximate cost of the plot and the house has been indicated in the Table annexed to it and that the amount given in it was subject to revision in future and further that the revised cost will be payable by the allottees. The table contains the approximate cost of the plots and category of the house including HIG houses in the self financing scheme. In view of this term it is difficult to accept the plea that the MDA could not communicate the final price subsequently and required the complainant to pay it. The legal position in this regard is settled by repeated pronouncement of the National Commission relying on which this State Commission has also ruled like-wise in its decision dated 29th November, 1995 in Sheo Dutta Puri v. Meerut Development Authority (Complaint No. 110 of 1992). That decision also related to the same Ganga Nagar Ayasiya Yojna of the MDA in which House No. A/28 had been allotted to the complainant Sheo Dutta Puri. May be, as urged by Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Counsel for the complainant, the MDA has not placed cogent material to satisfy the State Commission that the increase in price from Rs. 3,70,000/- to Rs. 4,69,000/- was justified on facts particularly when the two reasons put forward about the escalation in price on behalf of the MDA were the cost of increased area for which the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 5,800/- and the increase in the cost of building material for which no evidence has been placed before the Commission by the MDA, yet the matter being outside the ambit of inquiry in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Commission finds itself unable to go into this aspect of the matter.

THE complainant has also claimed relief for mental agony and physical harassment occasioned to him by the conduct of the MDA. THE MDA says that no mental or physical agony has been caused by it to the complainant. This plea does not impress us because we feel that having realised a huge amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- from the complainant on cash down basis and having delivered physical possession of the house to him there-after on fulfilment of the remaining formalities the demand for further huge amount of Rs. 9,500/- and making it a pre-condition for execution of the sale-deed and making the complainant run to it time and again must have resulted in mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. This can be assumed in his favour. THE MDA is liable to pay compensation to the complainant in this respect. We assess the amount at Rs. 10.000/- having regard to the circumstances of the present case. The complaint succeeds to the extent that the MDA is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment apart from paying a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings. The amounts shall be paid to the complainant by the MDA within three months failing which the MDA will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date of payment till the date of actual payment to the complainant.

Let copies of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties as per rules. Complaint allowed with costs. _____________