H.P. NAGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR vs RAVINDER SINGH MINHAS

THE respondent/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the complainant'') applied for allotment a flat Type ''D'' under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme in Phase-II below Bishop Cotton School to the appellant-H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran.

HIS offer was accepted by the appellant and as required by them, he deposited all the amount as per the scheme aforementioned before the delivery of the possession but unfortunately the possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant according to the schedule. Since the complainant was in immediate need of the house, he changed his mind and requested and applied to the appellant to allot him the flat Type ''D'' in Phase-I under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme. The appellant accepted the request/proposal of the complainant and allotted him a specific Flat No. 70 Type ''D'', Block No. 4, Ground Floor in general category under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme instead of earlier allotment under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme. At this stage, we may notice that such allotment was made under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme by the appellant to the complainant vide letter dated 26.5.1995 (Annexure C-2) and the complainant was asked as to how he would like to make payment of the balance cost of the unit allotted to him. This letter clearly stipulates that the complainant will have to pay the balance cost of the unit allotted to him under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme. It was never the case of the appellant at the time of allotment of flat under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme that he will have to make the payment of the balance cost at the rate as was prevalent under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme. It appears that the physical possession of the flat was also delivered to the complainant. However, contrary to the terms and conditions of allotment of the flat in Phase-I under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme to the complainant, the appellant sought to recover the balance amount in terms of the rates applicable to 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme under which the original allotment was made to the complainant. Admittedly, the price of the flat, Type ''D'' in Phase-I under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme is Rs. 4,13,199/-, whereas the price of the same flat ''D'' in Phase-II under the 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme is Rs. 7,06,800/-. In other words, the appellant wanted to charge much higher rates of the flat than what was prevalent in respect of flat Type ''D'' in Phase-I under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme. Hence, the complainant was forced to file the complaint.

The District Forum has held that the complainant shall be charged the price of flat, type ''D'' in Phase-I under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme instead of type ''D'' in Phase-II under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme. In case, excessive amount has been paid by the complainant, then what is due under the 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme, that amount shall be refunded to the complainant alongwith the interest @ 18% per annum. However, the appellant was also saddled with damages of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE question, in substance, that requires consideration is that once the appellant has agreed to the conversion and allotment of the flat to the complainant in Phase-I under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme instead of Phase-II, 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme, to what amount they are legally entitled to. In other words, whether they are entitled to recover the price of Rs. 4,13,199/- under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme or a price of Rs. 7,06,800/- under the 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme. We have considered this question and are of the firm opinion that once the appellant-Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran have agreed to the conversion of the flat from 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme to 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme and have delivered the actual possession of the unit under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme, this allotment for all intents and purposes has been made under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme superseding the earlier allotment under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme. While allotting the flat under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme to the complainant vide Annexure C-2 voluntarily, of course, on the application of the complainant, the appellant asked the complainant to intimate as to how he would like to make the payment of the balance cost of the unit allotted to him under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme. At this juncture, no such condition was imposed by the appellant that although the allotment of the complainant is being converted to 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme, he will be charged the price of 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme. Furthermore, when factually the complainant has been allotted the flat under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme, any agreement to the contrary, if any, that he would be charged under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme, cannot be acted upon. In these circumstances, the complainant cannot be charged higher price under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme legally, equitably and in the interest of fair play. As such the appellants are not entitled to charge higher price of the flat, i.e. Rs. 7,06,800/- under 5th Partially Self Financing Scheme. They can only charge Rs. 4,13,199/- under the 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme. We have seen the reasoning given by the District Forum with which we are in agreement. The order of the Disrict Forum is not liable to be interfered with.

IN view of foregoing, there is no force in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.