BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. BEDAMO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition purportedly under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Bihar State Housing Board ( to be referred as the Board ) seeks to assail the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, Patna ( in short, the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 613/2003. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum Bhojpur (herein to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 227 of 2002 by which the said District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant Smt. Bedamo Devi and held that the demand of Rs. 1,04,228/- raised by Bihar State Housing Board from the complainant was totally unwarranted, illegal and beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the Board and the act of making such demand amounted to negligence and deficiency in service on the par of the Board. The District Forum accordingly quashed the said demand of the Board with cost of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission but without success. Hence this petition.

(2.) We have heard Shri S Chandra Shekhar, Advocate, learned Counsel representing the Petitioner and Shri Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel representing the Respondent and have considered their respective submissions.

(3.) The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint have been amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. However, we may simply note that the basis of the order passed by the fora below was that the complainant had paid the entire consideration of the LIG flat allotted to the complainant and even possession was handed over to her before its completion and it lacked the basic facilities which the complainant completed at her own costs and therefore, the Board could not raise any further demand. In the impugned order, though the State Commission in its para 13 noted the correct legal position that pricing policy and the determination of the cost / price of flat/plot lay within the domain and ambit of the Board and the redressed agencies had no role to play therein but still going by the fact that possession had already been handed over to the complainant on receipt of certain amounts and thereafter there was no demand made by the Board until the demand of Rs. 1,04.228/-was made sometimes in 2001, it held that the said demand was not justified.