SHARADCHANDRA RAOREKAR Vs. BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 10 Appeal Nos.368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 374, 375, 377, 378 and 379 of 1997 have been filed against orders dated 30.5.1997 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in their Case Nos.37, 38, 33, 28, 34, 40, 32, 36, 39 and 29 respectively of 1994. All these 10 appeals are being disposed of by one composite order because the District Forum has passed exactly similar orders in all these cases. The facts and circumstances, law points and various other issues involved are also exactly identical and the District Forum has dismissed the complaints stating that the complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for or any other relief. The grounds of appeal are as under : (i) That the District Forum has erred in not formulating issues for determination. (ii) That the District Forum has erred in holding that first and second reliefs prayed for are a matter of pricing policy not triable by Consumer Disputes Redressal Agency. (iii) That the District Forum has erred in not holding that the increase in price was on account of the delay of 15 months and therefore, the dispute was in respect of escalation of cost. (iv) That District Forum has failed to consider that as per orders of Government of Madhya Pradesh as contained in Housing and Environment Department's Letter No. F 3-39/32-1/85 dated 6.12.1985 the Agencies like Special Area Development Authority, Housing Board, etc. have been directed to ensure that the estimate of the cost should be calculated in such a way that at the time of final fixation of price, it should not exceed 10% of the estimated cost. (v) That the District Forum has further failed to see that the Government in the same letter has further directed in para 3-A that unless the title and possession both of the land are obtained, registration should not be commenced. (vi) That the District Forum committed a mistake in holding that the cause of action arose on 1.1.1991, it was in fact continued cause of action and cause of action should have been counted from 7.3.1992 which was the date of delivery of the possession of the flat. (vii) That the opposite party did not raise the question of limitation before the District Forum, yet, the District Forum dismissed the complaints on the ground of limitation without giving an opportunity to the complainants of being heard on this point. The complainants were deprived of their right to apply for condonation of delay under Sub- section (2) of Sec.24-A. Passing an order on an issue not raised by opposite party and that too without giving an opportunity to the complainants of being heard,. amounts to denial of justice. In Appeal No.375/97 it has been further argued that in I (1991) CPJ 56 NC, 1991 CPR 220 NC, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that complaint regarding alleged deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party should be brought within three years from the date of taking over possession of the flats. (viii) That the District Forum has failed to see that alleged increase in area of the flats was not clearly described by the opposite party. It was not established that the area of the flats had increased than what was indicated at the time of advertisement inviting applications for registration of the flats.

(2.) Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case. Undisputed facts of the cases are as under : (i) That the respondent-BDA published an advertisement in newspapers inviting applications for registration of HIG and MIG flats under Self Financing Scheme at Ankur Complex, Phase IV, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal. The advertisement was published in the month of September, 1988 and the applications were to be received between 28.10.1988 to l4.11.1988. The heading in the advertisement was "new Housing Policy 1988" - flats available "xxxxx". In the advertisement, the area of HIG flat was shown as 101.5 sq. metre and that of MIG flat 74.23 sq. metre. The estimated value of HIG flats was Rs.2,65,100/- and that of HIG flat Rs.1,92,500/- and the registration amounts to be deposited with the BDA were Rs.30,000/- for HIG and Rs.25,000/- for MIG. (ii) That in the allotment orders issued in January-February, 1989 to the complainants after depositing the registration amount it was stated that the balance amount i. e. (estimated cost minus registration amount already deposited) was to be paid in four instalments of the amounts indicated therein, by 15.3.1989, 15.5.1989, 15.8.1989 and 15.10.1989. It was further stated that the lease rent, service charges and balance of the principal amount, if any, was to be paid before taking possession of the flat or by 31.12.1990 as 5th and last instalment. Thus, the four instalment periods for payment of principal amount i. e. the estimated full cost were two to three months whereas 5th instalment was to be paid after 14 months of payment of last "4th instalment of the estimated cost". This period of 14 months was given for completion of the construction of flats. (iii) That the respondent-BDA issued letters to the complainants that they have to deposit Rs.70,000/- as escalated cost of the flats by 1.1.1992 failing which they will not be allowed to participate in draw of lots for allotment of flat to be held on 7.1.1992. (iv) That on objection raised by the complainants, the respondent-BDA directed the complainants to deposit Rs.53,020/- in case of HIC flats and Rs.38,500/- in case of MIG flats and on depositing this amount, the allottees were placed in possession of flats in March, 1992 in pursuance of the allotment orders issued in March, 1992. (v) The respondent-BDA however, before delivering possession of flats obtained from the complainants consent letters that they would abide by the decision of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the BDA to enquire into the justification of the escalation cost of the flats and in case the Committee comes to the conclusion that escalation cost has to be paid, the complainants will deposit that amount with the BDA and then only lease deed will be executed.

(3.) The complainants in their complaint requested for, reliefs as under, from the District Forum: (I) Refund of the amounts deposited by the complainants with the opposite party as escalated cost before taking delivery of possession of the flats. (II) Interest on the above amounts at the rate of 18% per annum. (III) Interest at the rate of 18% by way of damages on the amount of estimated costs Rs.2,65,100/- in case of HIG and Rs.1,92,500/- in case of MIG flats for the period of delay in delivery of possession. (IV) Rent at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per month for the delay in delivery of possession. (V) Refund of 20%' on account of substandard quality of construction. (VI) 18% interest on the excess amount deposited for registration of the accommodation.