P.C.KUTTAN vs REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD

THE complainant who is a lawyer is heard as to the maintainability of the complaint. THE prayer in the complaint in substance and effect is for fixing the final cost of F4/15 building; the prayers in effect is for settling account, incidently involving the eligibility for concession in the matter of payment of interest. THE complainant says that this complaint came to be filed in view of the observation in the order dated 30th July, 1992 in Complaint No. 120/91. After the said complaint he approached both the Forum as well as the Appellate Forum and also the Lok Ayukta. Paragraph 6 of the order of Lok Ayukta mentions Complaint No. 129/91 and says that within a month of the disposal of the said complaint, the complainant filed O.P. 756/93 before the District Forum complaining about the fixation of the price for the land and the house. Para 3 of the order in the said O.P. is extracted in the order of the Lok Ayukta; it is observed that the District Forum do not think that there is much substance in the objection raised by the complainant either regarding the value of the land fixed or the cost of the building determined. It is observed by the Lok Ayukta that the District Forum directed to pay interest. He had also filed O.P. 1312/92. Appeals 579/95 and 1122/95 were filed that is mentioned in para 10 of the order of the Lok Ayukta and it is stated that the State Commission held that the question of pricing is outside the purview of the Consumer Courts. THE award of interest was upheld. Appeal No. 678/95 was allowed and the matter was remanded for fixing damages. It is stated in para 10 that the District Forum after remand held that the Board is liable to pay Rs. 27,800/-. It proceeds to state that the Board stated that the said amount has been paid to the parties. Even assuming that the said amount is not paid, the remedy is not fresh complaint, the decree-holder has to take out execution. Lok Ayukta also did not entertain the petition.

WHAT is important to note is, having regard to the scope of the complaint in the context of the reliefs claimed, the relief of fixing the price of the flat or the house and the plot, as well as the settling of account are not matters which would fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The National Commission in the decision in Commissioner, Gujarat Housing Board & Anr. v. Thakkar Somalal, 1996 (2) CPR 135, held that the question of pricing of the flat by Housing Authority or Board is not a consumer dispute. As has noted this Commission also in the appeal held so. The other consequential relief also cannot be entertained because the same concerns settlement of account. In such circumstance we do not consider that the complaint is maintainable before this Commission. In that view the complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.