VIDYA SAGAR vs CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.1997 passed by the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Appeal Case No. 36 of 1995. The controversy has arisen from the following facts :

THE petitioner filed a complaint in the District Forum, Chandigarh on 7.9.1993 alleging that the houses allotted to them by the Chandigarh Housing Board were to have 1330 sq. ft. covered area, that the tentative cost of each unit was fixed at Rs. 2.25 lakhs, that the draw of lots was held in 1988 and the allotment letters were issued in August, 1989. The covered area of the ground floor flats was only 1250 sq. ft. as against the promised 1330 sq. ft. the allottees were made to pay Rs. 2,83,700/- per unit as against the estimated cost of Rs. 2.25 lakhs; that correspondingly there has been a reduction in the cost of upper floors which have been brought down from Rs. 2.25 lakhs to Rs. 2,22,300/- and Rs. 2,22,500/- for the first and second floor flats respectively. A direction was sought to the Board to give break up of the price and reduce the price. The District Forum after considering the respective pleas of the parties, returned the finding that the Chandigarh Housing Board could recover from each complainant a sum of Rs. 2,41,700/- and directed refund of excess amount to the complainants together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual refund. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Chandigarh Housing Board preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that the brochure was published long ago and the applications were invited by 4.12.1986 whereas the draw of lots for the purpose of allotment was held in April, 1989 and possession was delivered in September and November, 1989. The increase in price especially in respect of those situated on the ground floor could not be considered to be a deficiency. At the time of applying for the flats, the complainants were made aware by the Housing Board that the prices were tentative. That being the condition laid down in the brochure itself, increase or decrease in tentative cost of the flats by the Board could not be challenged before the Forum. The only piece of evidence coming before the District Forum with regard to decrease of built area is report dated 11.2.1994 of Shri T. N. Gupta, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) appointed as Local Commissioner, which is neither supported by this affidavit nor any affidavit of the complainant. The fact that Shri Gupta was not cross-examined was of course an omission on the part of the Chandigarh Housing Board but when the site plan annexed with the report of Shri Gupta is compared with the site plan (Annexure P-2), it could not be held that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the Board requiring interference because there was no substantial evidence that the size of the rooms and other areas as advertised by the Board were not provided for by it. In fact, the complainants had not placed their affidavits in support of their pleas. It was further observed that the Counsel for the appellant had referred to various judgments of the National Commission wherein it was observed that the pricing was not a factor which fell within the purview of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The State Commission also observed that in the present case the possession was delivered to Vidya Sagar on 12.9.1989 and to Wg. Cdr. Beant Singh on 1.11.1989 and to several other complainants on or about in the month of November, 1989 itself. A mention in the letter of the Chandigarh Housing Board dated 13th August, 1992 stating therein that no change regarding price of the ground floor was called for could not extend the period of limitation. Cause of action arose in 1989 and the complaint filed in the year 1993, was clearly barred by time. After considering material placed on record and hearing the parties, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It was contended by Mr. Nidhesh Gupta that the order of the State Commission suffered from legal infirmity. The claim of the petitioner was within time. On merits it was contended that the State Commission went wrong in declining to go into the question of pricing of the flat.

WE have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the complainants very carefully. The price of Rs. 2,35,000/- given in the brochure for ground floor was tentative, whereas at the time of allotment of the flat the price was fixed at Rs. 2,83,700/-. The complainant accepted the price and took possession of the flat. Even otherwise, the price of the flats was tentative and had to be finalised at the time of allotment of the flat. Firstly the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. Even otherwise, the petitioner-complainant had paid the price and took possession of the flat and thereafter it does not lie in their mouth to urge that the price charged was more and excessive.'' Regarding the other contentions that the area of the flat allotted to the complainant was lesser, has been elaborately dealt with by the State Commission. The State Commission after analysing the material on the record returned the finding that there was no substantial evidence that the size of the rooms and other areas as advertised by the Board were not provided for by it. We see no legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the State Commission which may call for our interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. We see no merit in this petition and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.