GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD Vs. AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the above titled appeals which have arisen out of the common order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad in Complaint Case Nos. 32,140,147,159 and 171 all of 1990. It may be mentioned here that the Complaint No. 32/92 was filed by Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat as complainant No. 1 on behalf of Smt. Shantaben Ranchhodlal Patel and other five freedom fighters as complainant No. 2. The names of those five freedom fighters as complainants were not mentioned in the original complaint but later on were disclosed as (1) Shri Chandramukh Jamaitram Vaidya; (2) Shri Manibhai Mohanlal; (3) Shri Anuchandra B. Pandya; (4) Shri Madhusudan Suryakumar; and (5) Shri Rajnikant Natwarlal Mehta. It may also be mentioned that during the pendency of the complaint, Smt. Shantaben Ranchhodlal Patel, complainant No. 2 died and her son Govind Bhai Ranchhodlal Patel filed an application before the State Commission for substituting his name alleging that he was the only legal heir to his mother's property. It is also to be mentioned here that in some complaints only the Gujarat Hosuing Board (for short the Board) was added as opposite party while in some i.e. complaints Nos. 32 and 159 State of Gujarat was also added as opposite party No. 2. Appeal No. 134/91 has been filed by the Board against complainants in all the complaints while Appeal No. 148 has been filed by the complainants in Complaint No. 171 of 1990, Appeal No. 154 by the complainants in Complaint No. 140/90 and Appeal No. 163/91 by the complainants in Complaint No. 159/90. Complainants of other complaints have not filed any appeal. All the above complaints filed before the State Commission were in respect of the same scheme floated by the Board in the month of February, 1982 for construction of tenement houses in Ahmedabad for the benefit of eligible freedom fighters. The Board invited applications by issuing a public advertisement to survey the demand. The relevant portion of the said advertisement as translated by the State Commission is as follows: DEMAND SURVEY "..........It is hereby declared that the Gujarat Housing Board has decided to prepare a housing Scheme as shown herein below for the benefit of freedom fighters who are recognised by the Government: It appears that adequate number of applications were received from freedom fighters for the scheme alongwith the initial deposit of Rs. 5,000/-. Ultimately the Board proceeded with the construction of raw houses (duplex). According to the averments in the complaints the construction work was completed or about to be completed and the complainants received a notice on 7th February, 1987 informing one of the complainants that House No. 12 was allotted to her and her Number was included in the final list of allotment. The notice specifically stated that the estimated hire purchase price was about Rs. 1,50,000/- and she was required to pay further payment of Rs. 35,000/-. The said notice in term stated that if the amount was not paid as directed, the application for allotment of the house would be cancelled in accordance with the Rules. It appears that similar notices were also served to the other complainants. Ultimately the Board demanded Rs. 1,85,000/- as final costs of construction. Being aggrieved by the said amount of final cost, the complainants preferred the various complaints.

(2.) THE Board contested the complaints. The plea advanced by the Board is that the prices shown in the demand notice was estimated prices and was in accordance with the HUDCO requirement and that they have not taken any undue time in completion of this scheme. The Board also stated as to how the price came to be fixed contending that the same has been fixed rightly which the complainants are bound to pay.

(3.) THE main submissions made on behalf of the Board before the State Commission were that the price shown in the demand survey was merely the estimated cost which was liable to change at the time of allotment of the houses and the complainants have waived their right to object by signing the acceptance letter and they cannot now come forward and pray for the refund of the purchase price already paid by them.