Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Arun Kumar Goel, President, Narinder Singh Thakur and Saroj Sharma, Members
K.K. GUPTA AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
H.P. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Complaint No. 03 of 2004
Decided on : 09-04-2007
Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate, for the Respondent
Jurisdiction of the court to decide on costing in housing scheme disputes.
Headnote:
Enhanced Cost - Housing Scheme - Not Applicable - CWP No. 216/2003 - The court discussed the enhanced amount claimed by the respondent and the challenge by the complainants. The court referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 216/2003 and held that the complainants, other than the four objectors, were not entitled to relief. The court further held that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question of costing and rejected the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants challenged the enhanced amount claimed by the respondent in a housing scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants, other than the four objectors, were not entitled to relief and held that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question of costing.
Issues: Challenge of enhanced amount claimed by the respondent, jurisdiction of the court to decide on costing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question of costing and rejected the complaint.
Final Decision: The complaint was rejected, and the court clarified that the four complainants named, if they have any other remedy available to them in law, will be free to approach the appropriate forum.
ORDER
Arun Kumar Goel, President (Oral)- We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also examined the record of the complaint. Following reliefs are claimed by the complainants:
"1. It is, therefore, prayed that the complainants may be given reliefs as indicated in para-9 above i.e. Rs. 23,37,722 plus interest on this amount falling to the share of each complainant.
2. The interest charged and anticipated under various heads amounting Rs. 3,05,34,570 need to be passed on to the allottees as the cost of raw land has been met out of the deposits made by the allottees. The interest paid on deposits of the allottees may be adjusted from this interest to be just and fair as prayed for in the proceeding paragraph.
3. The profits earned on sale of Utility Centre and Commercial Shops need also to be passed on to the allottees.
4. The expenditure incurred on setting up of electric substation, laying of sewerage line and road amounting to Rs. 11,63,941, Rs. 53,05,535 and Rs. 29,78,401 respectively should be proportionately divided on part-1 and part-2 of phase-III as the benefit this also is being shared by part-2 and proportionate expenditure need to be added to part-2 scheme and the difference given to allottees of part-1.
5. The respondent board may be directed to produce relevant record for scrutiny and verification, the complainants have stated in detail the cost (sale price) worked out by the respondent board and the actual cost incurred by them.
6. It is further prayed that the respondent board may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to actual expenditure incurred on construction of phase-III, part-1 and the amount charged from the allottees under various heads.
7. The complainant seek the indulgence of this Hon'ble Commission to direct the respondent board to refix the price of flats, etc. after given credit of items indicated in 1 to 6 above and pass on the benefit of the price so worked out to allottees/complainants in proportion to their cost realized from them as indicated in para-9 above.
8. The respondent board may kindly be burdened with expenses for mental torture and harassment to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) to each complainant. The cost of litigation may also be awarded in favour of the complainants."
2. Facts as they emerge from the record of this case are that the then Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, predecessor of the O.P. floated 9th Partially Self-Financing Scheme vide Annexure A-1.4 categories of houses were proposed under this scheme, being a, b, c and d were to be provided by the O.P. Tentative cost for each category as per Annexure A-1 was as under:
(a) 3,05,000
(b) 6,00,000
(c) 7,40,000
(d) 9,38,000.
For the present complaint we are concerned that, categories b, c and d against the tentative cost of category b Rs. 7,85,750 was claimed; against category c Rs. 10,25,000 was claimed and against category d Rs. 13,07,922 was claimed by the O.P. from the complainants.
3. In this background enhanced amount claimed by the respondent has been challenged by the complainants and they have prayed for grant of the above relief.
4. At the time of hearing it was not disputed on behalf of the parties that while depositing the money only complainant No. 1 Mr. K.K. Gupta, No. 2 Mr. Rajinder Sharma, No. 4 Smt. Jiwan Lata Sharma and No. 6, Mr. Brij Bhushan Kalra objected to the claim of enhanced cost from what was offered in the brochure complaints applied for such complainants. None other than these complainants objected to the enhancement of cost.
5. What is its effect will be examined in the light of the order passed by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 216/2003 and other connected matters. Reason being that the petitioner in that case Mr. Jeta Ukkhal and other allottees approached the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the charging of escalated cost. Following order was passed on 1.4.2003 and this order for ready reference is reproduced her
