Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the ‘Commission’). The Commission held that as delay in handing over the possession was clearly established and the reasons in price escalation of the house was not proved or established, the respondent was entitled to get the house at Rs. 6.3 lacs instead of Rs. 7.44 lacs as demanded by the appellants.

2. Background facts in a nutshell, as projected by the appellants are as follows :

On 15.8.1995 the appellants floated a scheme for allotment of 784 four story MIG (SUPER) flats on hire purchase basis at SAS Nagar, (Mohali). The scheme opened on 15.8.1995 and was to close on 14.9.1995. As per the advertisement inviting applications for allotment under the said scheme, the tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs. 6.3 lacs. However, condition (2) therein clearly specified that the price quoted is purely tentative and based on the present cost of construction and that it was likely to be revised on the higher side by the time houses are completed. The said clause reads as under :

"The price quoted is purely tentative and is based on the present cost of construction. It is likely to be revised on the higher side by the time houses are completed."

3. The advertisement further stated that the allotment shall be governed by PUDA under rules and regulations framed/amended from time to time.

4. On 27.3.1996 pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, a large number of applicants (including the respondent) applied for a MIG Super Category flat under the scheme in the prescribed Proforma Clause 12(ii), (iii) & (iv) of the said Proforma read as under :

"(ii) I have carefully gone through and understood the terms and conditions of the scheme applied and do hereby undertake to abide by the same.

(iii) I also undertake to pay higher cost due to fluctuations in the prices of building material or due to any other reason.

(iv) I shall abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment made by the PUDA as amended from time to time and shall enter into such agreement in any manner and at any time, as stipulated by PUDA."

5. Prior to the construction of the flats, the first draw for allocation of flats, was held on 7.12.1995. On the basis of this draw held prior to the construction of flats, allocation letters (including allocation letter dated 27.3.1996 issued to respondent) were issued. In the said allocation letters, the tentative cost of each flat was stated to be Rs. 6.30 lacs. The said figure was purely provisional, as was made explicit by Note (i), (ii) & (iii) contained in the said allocation letter, which read as under :

"(ii) The aforesaid price is purely tentative. The actual price shall be determined on completion of House/Flat and you shall be liable to make payment of the revised price of these Houses/Flats, if any, at the time of allotment.

(iii) Earnest Money already deposited with the Board will be adjusted with the instalments required to be deposited before taking over possession."

6. Note (i) contained in said allocation letters gave the tentative date when the flats were expected to be completed. The said note stated:

"Houses/Flats are likely to be completed by April 1997. This date is however tentative and may change."

7. The applicants accepting the allocation were required to submit affidavits to the effect that they would abide by the terms and conditions of allocation and the respondent submitted the required affidavit dated 15.4.1996. 784 MIG (Super) flats were completed in the years 1998 and second draw was held for allotment of specific flat numbers to applicants successful in the first draw, including the respondent and allotment letters dated 21.8.1998 were issued to the applicants including the respondent.

8. On 6.10.1998 the respondent accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment letter by tendering an affidavit dated 16.10.1998 to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment l