SATYANDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from an order passed by Bihar State Commission, in a complaint filed by Shri Satyandra Kumar Singh (appellant in FA No. 208/1996) against the respondent Bihar State Housing Board (appellant in FA No. 579/1996), alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bihar State Housing Board.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant Shri Satyandra Kumar Singh was allotted a flat, in response to an advertisement floated by the Bihar Slate Housing Board, for which on different dates between 1.9.1987 and 1.9.1988, an amount of Rs. 1,20,000 was deposited along with Rs. 15,000 deposited as earnest money by the complainant with the Housing Board. As per the advertisement the project was to be completed within a period of 2 years but this time limit was not adhered to by the Housing Board. Finally a hire-purchase agreement was entered into only in early 1992, yet possession was not given as housing had several defects. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bihar State Housing Board, a complaint was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties at length and perusal of material on record, dealt with three points, namely, firstly, the issue relating to price escalation of flat from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 2,81,143 secondly, relating to the 'defects' in the flat and thirdly loss caused to the complainant on account of not giving the delivery of the flat on time. The State Commission allowed the complaint only to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% for the deposited amount, i.e., Rs. 1,20,000 from 25.8.1992 till the possession of the flat is delivered, along with compensation of Rs. 10,000. The State Commission, did not deal with the question of price escalation as according to them settled law does not permit the Consumer Forums from going into the question of price escalation. As far as the defects in the flat are concerned, since hire-purchase agreement envisaged the deliveryof possession on "as-is-where-is" basis, there is no question of any defect, hence these two prayers were not allowed. Aggrieved by this order, both the parties have filed two separate appeals before us.

(3.) We heard the complainant, who was present in person as also to the learned Counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board. Basic facts are undisputed, namely, that in response to an advertisement floated by Bihar State Housing Board in Times of India dated 25.1.1987, the complainant applied with an advance deposit of Rs. 15,000. According to this advertisement, the flat was to be completed within 2 years. On different dates upto September, 1988, the complainant had paid Rs. 1,20,000 yet the possession was not given within stipulated period. The Hire-Purchase-Agreement was entered between the parties only in early 1992. We are unable to sustain the plea of the Bihar State Housing Board that on account of problem with the contract / builders, there was delay. Be that as it may, as per admitted position, the complainant had paid Rs. 1,20,000 but as per Hire-Purchase-Agreement, complainant has been shown to have made an initial payment of Rs. 1,74,170, which as per the statement of the learned Counsel for the Housing Board, is on account of interest @15% having accrued/paid on Rs. 1,20,000, deposited by the complainant, admittedly paid by the complainant to the Housing Board.