M P HOUSING BOARD Vs. ASHOK CHANDRA VARSHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revision petitions arise out of the two orders of the State Commission allowing the appeals filed by the complainants and dismissing the two appeals filed by the petitioner against the orders of the District Forum which had only partially allowed the complaint.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainants had registered four different H.I.G. houses in 1991 with the petitioner Board at a cost of Rs. 3 lakhs with a proviso that this cost can go up by 10%. Delivery schedule was of 18 months as per terms of allotment order. Since the petitioner violated both the conditions i.e. by charging higher price than 10% of the indicated price of Rs. 3 lakhs and delivery of possession was given on 16.2.1995 after a delay of about 3 years, the complainant moved the District Forum for appropriate reliefs alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner. The District Forum after hearing both the parties while refusing to go into the question of pricing, awarded interest @ 18% for the deposited amount for the period 23.5.1993 i.e. when 18 months period expired till 16.2.1995 when the possession was delivered. On an appeal filed by the complainant, the State Commission directed that enhance/escalation of the cost of house be limited to 10% of the original cost indicated and refund the excess with interest @ 15% from the date of payments till the date of refund. It is againt this order that the petitiner, MP Housing Board, has filed this revision petition.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is true that in the advertisement there was a clause to limit the cost escalation to 10% of the quoted price but it was not there in the letter of allotment, hence not binding on the petitioner. State Commission erred in this regard. It was also argued by him that the period indicated for handing over possession was tentative - hence they cannot be bound down to the period of 18 months.