RADHA NAND SINGH vs Bihar State Housing Board

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Bihar State Housing Board (Housing Board).

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant in response to advertisement published in Hindustan Times dated 5.10.1988 for allotment of HIG Flats floated by the respondent Housing Board, applied for allotment of an HIG flat and deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 1,20,000. This advertisement stated the total cost of the flat at Rs. 1,90,000. The balance amount of Rs. 70,000 was to be deposited in 84 monthly instalments. An allotment letter was issued by the respondent wherein the price of the flat was indicated as Rs. 2,81,143. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent could not increase the price as they are bound by the price fixed at the time of advertisement and allotment. There were defects in the flats allotted to him and there has been a delay in handling over the possession of the flat to him. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after perusal the material on record and after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. As far as the ''pricing'' is concerned, as already established, the Consumer Forums cannot go into the question of ''Pricing''. The advertisement dated 5.10.1988 in Para 2 clearly stated that the "as per schedule rate estimated cost of the flat is Rs. 1,90,000....." (emphasis supplied). In view of the fact that the cost was estimated and also on account of the settled law that the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of ''Pricing'', we agree with the finding returned by the State Commission that there is nothing that the Consumer Fora can do about the question of ''Pricing'' hence we see no merit in this plea of the appellant.

The State Commission has clearly gone into the fact and returned a clear finding that the possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant on 15.7.1992 and nothing else has been shown to us to take any different view than the finding returned by the State Commission about the date of possession taken over by the appellant.

AS far as the allegations regarding the shortcomings and defects in the flats are concerned, as rightly held by the State Commission, they were not specified and no proof or affidavit of anyone was produced for carrying out the repairs/rectifying the defects costing over Rs. 70,000 nor has this gap been filled before us, hence we see no ground to take a different view than the one taken by the State Commission in the absence of any evidence/proof to the contrary. However, we see that there has been some delay in handing over the possession of the flat. On record we see that there are 3 advertisements floated by the respondent Housing Board dated 20.2.1985, 21.1.1987 and lastly on 5.10.1988. Even though, the appellant responded to advertisement dated 5.10.1988, since this was one continuing scheme we need to read this in harmony. While advertisement dated 20.2.1985 is informative it is the advertisement dated 21.1.1987 which will be relevant for our purpose. The Scheme is the same, under which 384, four storeyed HIG flats at Bahadurpur, Patna were to be constructed. In this advertisement, there is a clear mention that "Construction work is likely to be completed within 2 years...." Advertisement dated 5.10.1988 is a continuation of the earlier advertisement in the sense that 130 flats out of 384 flats mentioned in the advertisement dated 21.1.1987 were addressed to be allotted under this advertisement. The first payment in the instant case was made by the complainant in 1988 as booking amount, and subsequently in March 1990, September 1990 and then corresponding months in 1991. Since the construction of flats was an ongoing process, flats should have been handed over from within 2 years of the first payment, i.e., November 1988, if not earlier, if we take into consideration advertisement of 21.1.1987. It cannot be any one''s case that the Housing Board will take two years after the last payment in respect of each allottee. If the advertisements are made, in order to attract prospective buyers, and if by a public authority the word is not kept then we have no hesitation in fastening deficiency on the part of the Housing Board like the respondent, in this case. In our view the flat should really have been allotted to the complainants in this case by latest November, 1990. Hence there has been a clear delay in handing over the possession of the flat only in July 1992. Thus, in our view, the appellant is entitled to interest for the money deposited from time to time. As per settled law and in view of the provisions existing in the terms of ''payment-of-interest'' by the Bihar State Housing Board, they are directed to pay interest @ 5% p.a. on the deposited amount for a period of 19 months from November 1990 to July 1992. This payment shall be made to the appellant within a period of six weeks of the passing of this order.

THE appeal is allowed only in above terms. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.