The question of pricing of a flat cannot be the subject matter of adjudication by a FORA, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint briefly stated are that the complainant had applied for a Category-III Flat in the ‘Vth Self-Financing Scheme’ of the opposite party/DDA vide Application No. 27310 dated 29.9.1983 and also deposited the Registration fees. On 20.1.1984 the opposite party/DDA allotted a Category-III Flat in Sector-B, Pocket-6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, to the complainant and also asked him to pay the estimated cost of Rs. 2,48,000/- in instalments as per schedule. The complainant paid four instalments in time as per the demand of the opposite party. The fourth and the last instalment was paid in March, 1986. Thereafter, the complainant received a letter from the opposite party/DDA dated 27.2.1987 informing him that a Category-III Flat on first floor at Kishangarh, Delhi had been allotted to him in lieu of his previous allocation and the estimated cost of the said flat was intimated as Rs. 2,11,600/-. In May, 1990 the complainant received another letter from the opposite party/DDA that the final cost of the flat allotted to him had been worked out to Rs. 2,77,300/-. The above said total cost of the flat also included an amount of Rs. 37,344.80 as interest on account of late payment of instalments. The complainant, however, obtained the possession of the flat on 10.8.1990. The grievance of the complainant is with regard to the additional cost of Rs. 65,700/- and the amount of interest Rs. 37,344.80 which according to him, has been charged and deducted from the amount due and payable to him by the opposite party illegally in an arbitrary manner.

3. The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the refund of the above amount of Rs. 1,03,044.80 together with interest at market rate from May, 1990 upto the date of payment and has also claimed Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

4. The opposite party/DDA has filed written statement/written version in which a number of preliminary objections have been taken. One of the preliminary objections is with regard to the maintainability of the present complaint under the Act. The opposite party/DDA has also denied all the other allegations of the complainant regarding arbitrary fixation of the price of the flat and charge of interest. It is stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite party that nothing in excess has been charged from the complainant towards the price of the flat and the net amount of Rs. 15,911/-, received in excess, has already been refunded to the complainant. It is further stated that the complaint filed by the complainant has no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement/written version controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

6. Both the parties were allowed to file their evidence by way of affidavits. The complainant has filed his own affidavit by way of evidence, whereas on behalf of the opposite party an affidavit by Ms. Asma Manzar, Director (H) has been filed.

7. We have heard the arguments addressed before us by the complainant in person as well as by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. We have also gone through the entire evidence as well as material/documents placed on record.

8. During the course of arguments, the main contention advanced at the Bar by the Counsel for the DDA was that in view of a catena of judgments, the question of pricing of a flat cannot be the subject matter of adjudication by a FORA, constituted under the Act and as such the present complaint was liable to be dismissed on the above ground alone. The learned Counsel for the opposite party specifically relied upon the decision of the National Commission in case DDA & Anr. v. Manohar Lal Sharma, First Appeal Nos. 1