GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PURWA DUREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, we propose to dispose above noted revision petitions arising out a common order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., involving common question of law and fact.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of these revision petitions are that respondents in the above noted revision petitions preferred separate consumer complaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( in short, 'the Act') claiming that pursuant to Tatkal allotment scheme sponsored by the petitioner Authority, respective complainants applied for allotment of chambers in Kaushambi chambers and deposited the registration amount. As per the terms of the allotment, the balance was to be paid in instalments. After the payment of 70% of the consideration amount, the possession of the chambers were delivered to the respective complainants. The conveyance deeds were to be executed after the payment of the whole consideration amount. It is the case of the complainants that despite the payment of the agreed consideration amount, the petitioner Authority has failed to execute conveyance deeds of the chambers in their favour. It is further alleged that for executing the conveyance deeds, the petitioner authority has asked for escalated final price which is not justified. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, respective complainants filed consumer complaints seeking an order that petitioner Authority is not entitled to receive any additional amount except as shown in the allotment letters and that the petitioner Authority be directed to execute conveyance deeds in favour of respective complainants on receipt of lease rent. The complainants also prayed for compensation for mental agony and litigation.

(3.) The respondents contested the complaints by filing written statement. It was claimed by the respondents that initially at the time of issue of allotment letter, only a tentative price was quoted and final price was to be fixed subsequently. According to the opposite party, the amount now demanded from the respective complainants is the difference between the tentative price and the price fixed by the authority, which amount, the respondents have failed to pay. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner is justified in insisting on payment of the difference between the final and tentative before executing the conveyance deeds in favour of respective complainants.