RAM LAL vs UPADHYAKH, D.A.A. GHAZIABAD

THE facts of the case are that the Complainant applied on 30-7-88 for allotment of a house in the Rajendra Nagar Housing Scheme to G.D.A., Ghaziabad. THE opposite party allotted to the Complainant house No. V. 1./618 Rajendra Nagar Housing Scheme G.D.A. Ghaziabad vide letter dated 5.6.90. THE Complainant has stated that in the beginning the estimated cost of Rs. 3.86 lacs was mentioned and they have referred to the letter dated 18-10-88 of the G.D.A. wherein 45% of the amount was to be paid in advance.

THE Complainants case is that vide their letter dated 5.6.90 (para 5 of the main Complaint) the opposite party increased the price of the house by Rs. 84,000/- due to increase in total covered area, land area & the cost of the building material. THE Complainant in para 6 of the Complaint has relied on his letter dated 19-7-90 wherein he wrote to the G.D.A. to the effect that from October 88 to June 90, he was never informed about the increase in the cost of the house. THE case of the Complainant is that the claim made by the G.D.A. for enhancement of price by Rs. 84,000/- is not justified. THE Complaint has been opposed by the G.D.A. THEy have contended that since the dispute related to only Rs. 84,000/- which is the enhanced amount of the cost of the house, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that this Complaint be filed before the District Forum accordingly. On this point we have heard both the parties and we find that this preliminary objection as raised has no merit. While determining the jurisdiction of the State Commission the value of the house has also to be taken into account. In this respect the reference be made to Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which shows that to determine the financial jurisdiction of the claim the value of the property shall also been be included. THE value of the house is already more than Rupees one lakh. THE Complainant is well with in the financial jurisdiction of this State Commission. We accordingly repel the preliminary objections and hold that the claim is entertainable by the State Commission. During the intermediate proceedings on the case the Complainant sought permission to amend the Complaint which was granted to him. The G.D.A. raised preliminary objections to the amended Complaint.

We have considered pleas put forward by both the parties, on this point & we accepted the amended Complaint for being considered by us on merits.

ON the merits of this case the main grievance of the Complainant is that the increase of price to the extent of Rs. 84,000/- in the cost of the house is arbitrary. We have examined the file and have considered the pleadings of both the parties. During the final arguments emphasis was also laid by the G.D.A. to the fact that the house is located on a corner plot which has more land than the normal plots (not the corner) and that the price of the land of a corner plot also 10% higher than the price of the normal plot (not the corner one). The Complainants main contention that the increase in price is arbitrary. ON the other hand the G.D.A. in their counter affidavit have referred to specific provisions of the brochure of the scheme in question wherein in addition to other provisions, it is specifically provided that after completion of these houses, the final cost calculated by the G.D.A. will be final & acceptable to the allottee. We find that the G.D.A.''s letter dated 18.10.88 does not allot any particular house to the Complainant but only reserves a house in the scheme in question and intimates estimated cost as Rs. 3,86,000/-. In this letter a reference to the terms & conditions of the brochure has been made.

WE find that the actual allotment of the particular and specific house has been made by the G.D.A. for the first time vide their letter dated 5.6.90 and in this very letter the G.D.A. has informed the Complainant about the increase in cost of the house to be Rs. 84,000/- payable in 2 equal six monthly installments before possession. The only point under consideration before us in this Complaint case is as to whether the increase in cost by Rs. 84,000/- is valid or not. We find that the increase in cost has been intimated to the Complainant by the G.D.A. in the very letter in which the specific house has been allotted by the G.D.A. to the complainant. We find that the option is available with the Complainant either to accept the allotted house at the increased price or not to accept the allotted house on the increased price. We find that in the end of his affidavit dated 3.7.92 (page 5) the Complainant has himself stated that the present market price of the house is Rs. 6 (six) lacs, whereas the increased price (including Rs. 84,000/- cover to only Rs. 4.70 lacs). We do not find any justification to disallow the increase of Rs. 84,000/- in the cost of the specific house in question. The Complaint is decided in the manner indicated above and is hereby dismissed. Complaint dismissed.