Naveen Rawat vs U.P. Avas And Vikas Parishad

THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 16.9.2013, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in F.A. No. 1270/2013, Naveen Rawat v. U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad and Ors., vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 22.5.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, II Moradabad, dismissing the consumer complaint No. 94/2012, filed by the present petitioner, was upheld. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant booked a house vide application No. 4831 with the O.P. by depositing the registration money of Rs. 90,000 on 6.2.2009. The OP/respondent declared him eligible for the house vide their letter number 3815 dated 18.7.2009. The petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 6,76,000 on 26.10.2009. According to the complainant, at that time, the rate of developed land was Rs. 6,200 per sq. meter, whereas he was made to pay @ Rs. 7,500 per sq. meter along with 12% of money as free hold charges. The petitioner alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. for having charged the enhanced cost of land. According to him, house No. 6A/98 was allotted to some other person on 30.3.2011 for which a different amount was charged, but the petitioner was allotted house No. 6A/183 on 30.4.2011 for which higher amount was charged. The petitioner stated in his complaint that according to Rule 10 of the Costing Manual 1986 of the OP, the developed cost is to be charged, which was prevailing on the date of payment of the first instalment. The O.P. on the other hand has maintained that there was amendment in the 1986 provision of the Manual in the year 2006, according to which, in all Self -Financing Schemes, the prevailing cost is to be charged. In the Registration Booklet -2009, it has been mentioned that the prevailing rate of land cost shall be charged. The petitioner filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum which was dismissed on 22.5.2013, upholding the stand of the OP. An appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was also dismissed vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/complainant submitted that the O.P. were guilty of deficiency in service as they had charged more price from him than required as per the provisions of the Scheme. He stated that the total cost of the house as shown in the Registration Booklet -2009 was Rs. 17,80,000 whereas he was made to pay a sum of Rs. 24,59,570. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at admission stage before us. The only issue to be adjudicated in the present case is whether the OPs should have charged the petitioner for the cost of the house, according to the rates prevalent at the time of booking or at the time of making allotment. It has been clarified by the OPs in their reply to the complaint that the provisions made in 1986 in the Manual was subsequently amended in the year 2006 for cases under the self -financing scheme and as per the amended provisions, the prevalent rate was to be charged from the allottee. The petitioner has not been able to show anywhere that the exercise of power in making amendment in the policy by the O.P. was arbitrary or whimsical in any manner. It is an accepted legal provision that the developer has a right to determine and adopt the pricing policy, but the same should not be arbitrary or violative of accepted norms of justice. We are supported in this view in the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Sheelawanti and Ors. v. DDA and Anr., as reported in 57 (1995) DLT 801 (FB), in which it has been held that in the matter of costing and fixation of prices, the scope of judicial review was very much limited. A similar view has been expressed by this Commission also, in the case of Kartar Singh v. DDA, as reported in 0315/2007 : I (2008) CPJ 93 (NC) : 2008 (CPJ) 283 (C.P.). Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the OPs have charged the price of the house from the petitioner in accordance with the policy already declared by them. The petitioner is not justified in raising a demand, therefore, that he should be charged in accordance with the price at the time of booking. It is held, therefore, that the State Commission and the District Forum have not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error while passing the orders in question. The said orders are, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed at the stage of admission hearing. There shall be no order as to costs.