PRABHAT GOYAL S/O SURENDER DEV GOYAL Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition had been filed against the impugned judgment dated 20th January, 2017 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short, 'State Commission) in Appeal No. 991 of 2011.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that the Petitioner had applied for the Rajendra Nagar Instant Allotment Scheme advertised by the Respondent. The Respondent/Opposite Party allotted house No. 6-H/233, the cost of which was Rs. 4,50,000/- vide allotment letter/payment schedule dated 15.06.1996. Apart from 70% amount to be deposited in four quarterly instalments. Remaining 30% along with interest would also be paid in quarterly instalments. It was a Self-Financing Scheme. As mentioned in clause (c) and (d) of the said allotment letter that the possession could be taken after 70% payment of the final cost of the house and (d) in case if he wanted to pay the entire money in one instalment within a month no interest would be charged and one percent rebate in cost would be given. The total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner within one month on 12.07.1996 and possession of the said flat was taken on 17.06.1996. He then received a letter from the Respondent on 20.02.2004, wherein it was informed that there were dues of Rs. 2,89,517/- on the said house. The Petitioner sought an explanation from the Respondent as to on what basis the cost had been enhanced as he had already paid the entire amount and had also taken the possession on 17.06.1996 but the Respondent did not give any satisfactory reply in their letters issued dated 29.07.2004 and 12.12.2008. Hence, the petitioner was forced to file a complaint before the District Forum for this inappropriate behaviour of the respondent. The respondent should have calculated the final cost prior to giving the possession and not after eight years. Even if cost escalation was kept in mind for the said advertised scheme, even then it cannot be more than 10%. The petitioner had taken the possession after completing all the formalities and the petitioner had made the complete payment to the respondent as per the payment schedule given in the allotment letter. Fixing the cost after giving possession and stating that the sale deed registry would be done after payment of the same, came under the category of unfair trade practice. He, therefore, prayed that the Respondent/Opposite Party may be directed not to get any amount apart from the amount mentioned in the allotment letter/payment schedule dated 15.05.1996 and that the letter dated 20.02.2004 issued by the Respondent for demanding the differential amount of Rs. 2,89,517/- because of being in the nature of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is, liable to be quashed. He also prayed that the Respondent may also be directed to get executed the sale deed immediately after taking the duty as fixed by the State Govt. without taking the differential amount and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant for mental torture.

(3.) The Respondent/Opposite Party filed their written reply, wherein they have stated that the petitioner by depositing Rs. 45,000/- applied for a house No. 6 H/233 Rajendra Nagar under the Instant Allotment Scheme on 15.06.2007 and vide letter dated 15.06.2007 the allotment letter and payment schedule of the said house was again issued by the authority according to which Rs. 4,45,000/- was the estimated cost of the house. Possession of the house was taken by the petitioner on 17.06.1996 after completing the formalities and after giving an affidavit dated 12.07.1996. According to paragraph 3 of the affidavit, in the event of the authority giving the possession, the cost fixed by the authority would be paid to the authority as per the terms fixed by the authority. In the event of any objection in making the payment, the possession of the said house would be returned to the Authority. The fact that the Petitioner took the possession of the house after making the full payment of Rs. 4,45,000/- was not admitted, because as per the allotment letter and payment schedule dated 15.06.1996, only the estimated price of the said house was declared as Rs. 4,50,000/-. The Petitioner was informed by the authority through registered letter No. 825/CDM/2002 dated 20.09.2002 that the final price of the house was Rs. 6,71,297/- and he was asked to deposit the differential amount of Rs. 2,21,297/- lease rent of Rs. 3,352/- within one month of the receipt of the letter and in case of delayed deposit, the amount would have to be deposited along with interest as applicable as per the rules. Thereafter vide letter No. 1785 dated 11.11.2003 sent through courier, it was informed to get the Registry done by presenting the deposit receipt of the amount due towards the house by 30.11.2003. It was again informed through reminder letter No. 640 dated 13.02.2004 to get the registry done by 29.02.2004 after depositing the due amount. After informing about the due amount and sending two reminders, vide letter No. 697 dated 20.02.2004, it was informed that the due amount towards the house was Rs. 2,89,517/- to be paid with interest by 28.02.2004 and registry be got executed. The entire amount had not been deposited by the Petitioner. He had taken possession after depositing only the estimated cost and after giving affidavit dated 12.07.1996.