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