RADHA NAND SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Bihar State Housing Board (Housing Board).

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant in response to advertisement published in Hindustan Times dated 5.10.1988 for allotment of HIG Flats floated by the respondent Housing Board, applied for allotment of an HIG flat and deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 1,20,000. This advertisement stated the total cost of the flat at Rs. 1,90,000. The balance amount of Rs. 70,000 was to be deposited in 84 monthly instalments. An allotment letter was issued by the respondent wherein the price of the flat was indicated as Rs. 2,81,143. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent could not increase the price as they are bound by the price fixed at the time of advertisement and allotment. There were defects in the flats allotted to him and there has been a delay in handling over the possession of the flat to him. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after perusal the material on record and after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. As far as the 'pricing' is concerned, as already established, the Consumer Forums cannot go into the question of 'Pricing'. The advertisement dated 5.10.1988 in Para 2 clearly stated that the "as per schedule rate estimated cost of the flat is Rs. 1,90,000....." (emphasis supplied). In view of the fact that the cost was estimated and also on account of the settled law that the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'Pricing', we agree with the finding returned by the State Commission that there is nothing that the Consumer Fora can do about the question of 'Pricing' hence we see no merit in this plea of the appellant.