Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President;
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member
Subhash Kumar Jain—Appellant
versus
Chandigarh Housing Board & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Case Nos. 247 to 251 of 2005—Decided on 9.3.2005
Consumer Dispute - Housing Scheme - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(x), Section 2(1)(zg), Section 2(1)(zf), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(w), Section 2(1)(y), Section 2(1)(zb), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(x), Section 2(1)(z), Section 2(1)(zg), Section 2(1)(zf), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(w), Section 2(1)(y), Section 2(1)(zb) - The court discussed the pricing policy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the rights of the allottees after taking possession of the house. It referred to previous judgments and observed that the pricing of the flat by the housing authority or board is not a consumer dispute under the Act. It also emphasized that the fixation of price is primarily in the domain of the seller, and the seller is entitled to have its cost, with exceptions for public undertakings or instrumentalities of the State to be fair, reasonable, and not suffer from arbitrariness. The court found no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and dismissed the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants applied for allotment of flats in a housing scheme and were successful allottees. They alleged that the respondents did not issue the acceptance-cum-demand letter to them in a timely manner and increased the cost of the flat arbitrarily. They filed a complaint seeking a refund of the excess amount paid, interest, damages, and costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as the pricing policy was not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It held that the appellants voluntarily agreed to the price of the dwelling units as mentioned in the allotment letters and executed agreements to sell, thus concluding a contract with the respondents.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in issuing acceptance-cum-demand letters, the increase in the cost of the flat, and the alleged discrimination in pricing between allottees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pricing of the flat by the housing authority or board is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It emphasized the seller's entitlement to have its cost, with exceptions for public undertakings or instrumentalities of the State to be fair, reasonable, and not suffer from arbitrariness.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/- each.
Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President.—All the aforesaid five appeals have arisen from common order dated 20.9.2005 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum). The facts have been culled from the complaint titled Subhash Kumar Jain v. Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, etc., bearing complaint case No. 978 of 2002.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Chairman Chandigarh Housing Board had published a scheme for allotment of HIG (Upper) flats in Sector-38 (West), Chandigarh. The said scheme was opened on 23.5.1996 and closed on 22.6.1996. The copy of the brochure of the scheme is Annexure C-1. The appellant Subhash Kumar Jain applied for allotment of HIG (Upper) flat and deposited Rs. 50,000 with the respondents (opposite parties), being the earnest money along with the application. The draw of lots was held on 11.12.1996. The appellant was a successful allottee of one of the dwelling units in Sector-38 (West), Chandigarh, but the respondents did not issue the acceptance-cum-demand letter to him and kept him in the waiting list at Serial No. 16 and informed to the appellant (complainant) about this fact vide letter No. 1293 dated 16.1.97. It was next averred that respondents had advertised for the allotment of HIG (Upper) comprising 180 units but issued acceptance–cum- allotment letter to 162 allottees and no reason was communicated to the appellant as to why such allotment letters were not issued to all the 180 units. Subsequently the respondents issued acceptance–cum- demand letter to the appellant on 4.10.1999 vide letter No. 8809, inter alia asking him to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 within thirty days of the issuance of letter i.e. by 2.11.1999, further Rs. 1,80,000 by 10.4.2000, another Rs. 1,80,000 by 10.10.2000 and last amount of Rs. 1,80,000 by 10.4.2001.
3. It was further averred that the appellant deposited the amounts as asked by the respondents and on 26.4.2001, respondents issued allotment letter No. 91 and fixed the price of the flat as Rs. 12,97,700 whereas the cost of other similar HIG flats was Rs. 11.00 lacs for HIG (Upper) ground floor and Rs. 8,37,000 for first and second floors HIG flats, therefore, increase in the cost of flat from Rs. 11.00 lacs to Rs. 12,97,700 was arbitrary, illegal and against the well settled law of the land and no reason whatsoever was mentioned for fixing the higher price. Thus, they were required to refund Rs. 1,96,600 to the appellant along with interest @ 24% p.a. as he had deposited the entire amount with the respondents being the cost of the flat.
4. With these allegations, the complaint was filed for refund of Rs. 1,96,600 along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of receipt of full payment besides damages for undue harassment and costs of the complaint were also claimed.
5. Respondents contested the complaint and filed reply where they denied the allegations. They stated that the terms and conditions were mentioned in the allotment letter. The appellant (complainant) accepted the same without any protest and took over physical possession of the dwelling unit without any protest after making payment of the requisite amounts and also filed affidavit to that effect accepting terms and conditions and as such complete transaction had taken place, so, appellant could not wriggle out of the completed contract. They further stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part as there was no commitment for handing over possession of the dwelling unit within specified period either in the advertisement or in the brochure of the scheme and the possession was handed over to the appellant in less than 3½ years, though it was quite a big project worth Rs. 40 crores comprising 1728 dwelling units of different categories including 174 dwelling units of HIG (Upper) of which the appellant was an allottee.
6. The facts of other four appeals are also similar. The District Consumer Forum vide orde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
