Radha Verma vs Vice Chairman Ghaziabad Development Authority Ghaziabad (U.P.)

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.08.2013, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 1588/2011, ''''Radha Verma versus Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority,'''' vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 03.08.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad in consumer complaint No. 348/2009, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Radha Verma applied to the respondent Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) for allotment of a house in Madhuban Bapudham EWS Housing Scheme, property code 41F and Yojana Code 772 vide application number 10486. She was declared successful in the draw of lots, held on 12.06.2009, but the allotment letter was not issued to her despite sending two letters dated 20.08.2009 and 23.09.2009 by her. It has been stated in the complaint that because of the enhancement of the cost of the house in other schemes, the respondent was not issuing allotment letter to her. Through the consumer complaint in question, the petitioner requested for allotment of house in the scheme in which she had made application and in case of failure to allot the house, to pay a compensation of Rs.8.25 lakh and also to give compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony. The respondent GDA filed their response before the District Forum, admitting that the petitioner had been declared successful in the draw of lots, but stated that the allotment letter had not been issued to her because her concurrence for increase in the cost of the unit in question from Rs.2 lakh to Rs.3.25 lakh was awaited. Letters had been sent to the complainant to get consent for increased cost but she had not sent reply to those letters. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, directed vide their order dated 03.08.2011 that allotment letter be issued to the complainant for the house in Yojana Code 772, property code 41F, but the GDA was free to fix the cost of the house after issuing the allotment letter. A compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation was also allowed. As a sequel to the orders passed by the District Forum, the respondent GDA allotted flat no. Pocket E, 30/11 B to the complainant and the allotment letter was issued on 26.11.2011 and the final cost was mentioned as Rs.3,75,060/-. It is also mentioned that estimated cost of the said flat was Rs.2.70 lakh, but since the proposed grant was not provided by the Government, the cost of the flat had to be revised. An appeal was made by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, but it was dismissed vide impugned order. It is against this order that the petitioner/complainant has preferred this revision petition.

AT the time of arguments before us, the authorised representative of the petitioner, Mata Prasad Verma has drawn our attention to the written arguments filed by the petitioner before the State Commission which are on record. He stated that there had been injustice to the complainant at the hands of the respondent, because the cost of the flat had been revised by them without any valid reason. The respondent had also filed written arguments before the State Commission, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner, alongwith the revision petition.

WE have examined the entire material on record including the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties before the State Commission. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant became successful in the draw of lots held by the respondent Authority for allotment of flats in question, but the Authority decided to revise the price of the flat from Rs.2 lakh to Rs.3.25 lakh, which was not consented to by the petitioner and hence, the allotment letter was not issued to her. The District Forum, while passing their order on the consumer complaint in question, directed that allotment letter should be issued by the respondent, but the GDA had the right to fix the price of the flat on their own. Accordingly, an allotment letter dated 26.11.2011 was issued in favour of the complainant and flat No. E-Block 10/11 B for a consideration of Rs.3,75,060/- was allotted to her. It is the stand of the GDA that they had to revise the cost of the flat, since the proposed subsidy was not given by the Government. The petitioner/complainant has not been able to show anywhere that the respondent Authority had no right to revise the price of the flat. The District Forum and the State Commission have rightly observed that the determination of the price of the flat was within the domain of the GDA. The respondent have also given reference to the orders passed by the National Commission in ''''National Consumer Awareness Group versus The Housing Commissioner Punjab'''' [as reported in 1997 (3) CPJ 88 (NC)] and ''''Commissioner, Gujarat Housing Board & Anr. versus Thakkar Somalal'''' [as reported in 1996 (2) CPJ 90 (NC)], in which it has been held by this Commission that the question of pricing of flat by a housing Authority or Board is not a consumer dispute. A similar view has also been held in ''''Ghaziabad Development Atuhority versus Sandeep Singh'''' [Appeal No. 2482/2011 decided on 22.12.2011] In the light of the discussion above, it is held that the petitioner/complainant has not been able to prove anywhere that the respondent had no right to fix the price of the flat. The orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error and the same are upheld. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.