RAM LAL vs VICE CHAIRMAN, GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SHRI Ram Lal (hereinafter referred to as a Complainant) had filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow against the present Respondents who were Vice Chairman and Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GDA). The State Commission vide order dated 3rd June, 1993 dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal by the unsuccessful Complainant.

THE facts as gathered from the record are that vide letter dated 18th October, 1988 in response to the application of the Complainant for an HIG Duplex House in Rajinder Nagar Housing Scheme, GDA allotted House No.VI/018. The estimated cost of the house was mentioned as Rs. 3.85 lakhs and it was specified that 45% of the cost would be payable before possession. Subsequently, the Complainant received letter dated 5.6.1990 from the GDA intimating him that the price of the house had been increased by Rs. 84,000/-due to the increase in land area, covered area and also due to many-fold increase in building material. Vide letter dated 24.9.1992 the Complainant was informed that total cost of the house was now Rs. 4,90,517/- out of which Rs. 1,87,866/-would be payable after possession in 20 half-yearly instalments while the balance would be payable before possession. The Complainant wrote various letters to GDA and also personally met the Vice Chairman of that Authority. However, he did not receive a satisfactory reply to his queries about the increase in the price of the house. According to the Complainant the enhancement of the price is not justified. The GDA filed counter contesting the complaint of the Complainant. Their plea is that the land area as well as the covered area has increased and moreover the house allotted to the Complainant is a corner house and hence the enhancement.

THE main grievance of the complainant is that according to the brochure issued by the GDA in 1988 houses were expected to be completed within two years but the possession was offered to him in April, 1992 and secondly the price has been escalated arbitrarily and therefore, this amounts, to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

AFTER hearing the parties we are of the opinion that the above grounds taken by the Appellants have no force. As far as delay in the delivery of possession is concerned the GDA did not promise to deliver the possession of the house to the Complainant giving any particular period. According to the brochure issued by GDA, the houses were expected to be completed within two years but that was only tentative statement/period subject to exigencies. It is not the case of the Complainant that GDA had given any firm date by which the possession of the houses was to be delivered to the allottees. Hence we do not find any force in the argument of the Complainant. The other grievance of the Complainant is about the escalation in the price. It was argued that in the brochure there was no clause about the escalation in the price of the house. According to the Respondent in the brochure a note was given under Clause 3.30 to the effect "cost of the unit will be decided finally basing on the index of State Planning Institute". Even if for arguments sake it is held that escalation in the price is not warranted, this dispute cannot be gone into under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is not disputed that the activities of GDA will fall within the clause "service'' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. "Deficiency'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(g) as follows: "Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

IT will be seen from the definition of ''deficiency'' that the consideration for the ''service'' does not fall within that clause ''deficiency''. It has been the consistent view of this Commission that the question of pricing of a flat or a plot cannot be made the subject matter of a consumer dispute. In this respect reference can be made to the orders passed by this Commission . In the light of the above discussions we find no force in the present appeal and dismiss the same but make no order as to costs.