NARENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Narendra Pal Singh against the order of the State Commission dismissing his complaint filed against respondent, Meerut Development Authority (M.D.A.).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had applied for an HIG house under on Hire Purchase basis being Ganga Nagar-II Scheme. The cost of the house was Rs. 3,40,000/- for which 10% of registration fee was paid in March, 1990 and a house was reserved by M.D.A. on 18.3.1991 and the appellant/complainant deposited certain other amounts. The appellant was informed by M.D.A. vide letter dated 20.7.1991 that there were certain houses vacant, which were built under Phase I of the same scheme; if the appellant is willing to deposit the cost of house in lump-sum, then he could be allotted the house at a reduced price. Earlier estimated price was indicated as Rs. 3,70,000/-. If this offer was acceptable to the complainant then in that case he was to confirm in writing by 15.8.1991. This was done while amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- was deposited by the complainant after taking a loan; a further amount of Rs. 14,200/- was sought as lease rent on 2.11.1991. The appellant deposited Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 14,200/- being lease rent and Rs. 5,800/- being cost of extra land), possession of the house was also given on 30.11.1991. When the complainant approached the respondent for execution of sale deed, he was told on 19.2.1992 that the price of the flat allotted to him is Rs. 4,69,500/- and asked to deposit Rs. 99,500/-. It is in these circumstances that the appellant approached the State Commission seeking relief by way of quashing the extra demand of Rs. 99,500/- by M.D.A. and direction to the respondent to execute the sale deed. The State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the issue relates to escalation of cost which cannot be gone into by the Consumer Fora. It is against this order that the appellant filed an appeal before us.

(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that State Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it involves question of cost escalation. It is not so. Letter dated 20.7.1991 is very clear. Cost of the house was Rs. 3,70,000/- which was paid; extra amount asked for also paid and possession was given to him. No additional demand was raised at any stage till the complainant/appellant approached the respondent for execution of sale deed. He also relied upon the tripartite agreement (Loan Agreement) through which a loan of 2 lakhs was raised to make full lump-sum payment of Rs. 3,70,000/-. Nowhere any provision of escalation is mentioned. State Commission erred in arriving at the conclusion it did hence the order of the State Commission needs to be set aside. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the order of the State Commission is as per terms of the allotment of the house and as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Order of the State Commission is correct, hence needs to be upheld.