RAM LAL Vs. UPADHYAKH D A A GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are that the complainant applied on 30.7.88 for allotment of house in the Rajendra Nagar Housing Scheme to G. D. A. Ghaziabad. The opposite party allotted to the complainant house No. V. l/618 Rajendra Nagar Housing Scheme Ghaziabad vide letter dated 5.6.90. The complainant has stated that in the beginning the estimated cost of Rs.3.86 lacs was mentioned and they have referred to the letter dated 18.10.88 of the G. D. A. wherein 45% of the amount was to be paid in advance.

(2.) The complainant's case is that vide their letter dated 5.6.90 (para 5 of the main Complaint) the opposite party increased the price of the house by Rs.84,000/- due to increase in total covered area, land area and the cost of the building material. The complainant in para 6 of the Complaint has relied on his letter dated 19.7.90 wherein he wrote to the G. D. A. to the effect that from October 88 to June 90, he was never informed about the increase in the cost of the house. The case of the complainant is that the claim made by the G. D. A. for enhancement of price by Rs.84,000/- is not justified. The Complaint has been opposed by the G. D. A. They have contended that since the dispute related to only Rs.84,000/- which is the enhanced amount of the cost of the house, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that this complaint be filed before the District Forum accordingly. On this point we have heard both the parties and we find that the preliminary objection as raised has no merit. While determining the jurisdiction of the State Commission the value of the house has also to be taken into account. In this respect the reference be made to Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which shows that to determine the financial jurisdiction of the claim the value of the property shall also been be included. The value of the house is already more than Rupees One Lac. The Complaint is well within the financial jurisdiction of this State Commission.

(3.) We accordingly repel the preliminary objections and hold that the claim is entertainable by the State Commission. During the intermediate proceedings on the case the Complainant sought permission to amend the complaint which was granted to him. The G. D. A. raised preliminary. objections to the amended complaint.