Ravindra Nagar vs UJJAIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS order shall dispose of all the three Revision Petitions directed against the common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh disposing of three appeals. Petitioners/Complainants have filed these Revision Petitions against the judgment and order dated 11.09.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (in short, "the State Commission") in appeal nos. 2096, 2097 and 2099 of 2004 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeals filed by the Petitioners and upheld the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaints. FACTS:- Respondent, Ujjain Development Authority (Opposite Party before the District Forum) advertised booking of 12 houses situated at Supplementary Scheme No.1, Block-B, Vyas Nagar, Ujjain on the basis of hire purchase/self-finance. Each of the Petitioners purchased one HIG Duplex house from the Respondent. Cost of the house was tentatively fixed at Rs.4,95,000/- while the final cost was fixed at Rs.4,75,000/- and an amount of Rs.19,100/- was refunded to the Petitioners at the time of handing over the possession. As per the averments made in the complaint, after taking the possession, Petitioners found that there were some defects in the allotted houses. It was alleged that the houses were not earth quake resistant, material used in the construction was of sub-standard quality, over-head tank was not provided, ceiling, doors, windows, ground leveling, plaster and workmanship were defective, boundary wall was unnecessarily constructed, amount actually spent in construction was not communicated, no interest was paid on the excess amount of Rs.19,100/- ,Rs.2,300/- were illegally charged as supervision charges and lease money was wrongly charged. Complainants, being aggrieved, filed the separate complaint before the District Forum.

RESPONDENT, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaints, inter-alia, on the grounds that the construction was done as per the specifications; material used in the construction was of good quality, there was no provision for water tank and stair, no unnecessary construction was done, no promise was made to the Petitioners to construct earth quake resistant houses and even then the houses were constructed on open foundation basis which equally distributes the weight and the Ujjain city does not come under the earthquake prone area;lease rate was determined according to the rules of the M.P. Government Housing and Environment Department and at the time of allotment lease rent @ 2% p.a on amount of total premium of land was charged; actual costs was worked out after completion of the houses and the supervision charges were levied as per the rules. District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the complaints filed by the Petitioners holding that the allegations made in the complaints were not established by the Petitioners. Petitioners, being aggrieved, filed the appeals before the State Commission. State Commission after due appreciation of the material available on record and the evidence led by the parties returned the finding that the material used in the construction was got testified from the Government Engineering College, Ujjain; no charges were levied by the Respondent Authority for providing over-head tank; no promise was made to provide earth quake resistant houses and even the area where the house were constructed was not earth-quake prone and the boundary wall constructed by the Respondent could not be treated as an unnecessary item. Accordingly, State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by the Petitioners.

Petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present Revision Petitions. The Revision Petitions were admitted on 10.03.08 limited to the point of computation of lease amount and refund thereof. Petitioners, in their complaints, objected to the demand of lease amount on the cost of the land in which development charges were also included. However, according to the Respondent Authority the lease amount was demanded under the provisions of M.P. Nagar Evam Gram Nivesh Adhiyam, 1973. District Forum held that the lease amount was charged by the Respondent in accordance to the rules and the question regarding chargeability of lease amount and at what rate cannot be decided by the Consumer Fora. This point has not been touched upon by the State Commission as perhaps the same was not argued. In the grounds of Revision, it has not been mentioned by the Petitioners that this point was argued before the State Commission but the State Commission has failed to take note of it or to decide the same. The point which was not taken before the State Commission cannot be allowed to be urged before us. In any case, we agree with the view taken by the District Forum on this point that whether the lease amount can be charged or at what rate cannot be determined by the consumer fora under the Act. Lease amount/rent can be determined either under an Act or by an agreement entered into between the parties. The Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of chargeability of the lease amount or the rate at which it can charged. Since the Revision Petitions were admitted on this limited point only, the Petitioners appearing in person did not address the arguments on other points decided by the State Commission. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same.