Heard learned counsel for  appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case   of the complainants,  in nutshell is that the  OP launched a composite Housing Scheme for allotment of HIG-B Core Houses at Chhend(Rourkela) in stage-B,Phase-III ,LIG  and SCR Core houses  the same place. The Board acquired land  for the said purpose from Collector,Sundargarh and constructed 64 numbers of HIG-B Core hosues, 12 numbers of LIG Houses and 12 numbers of SCR Core houses.  On 24.04.2004,  the Board published advertisement  inviting applications for sale of the aforesaid core houses and the complainants being in need of houses applied for HIG-B  houses and the price was fixed at Rs.3,90,280/-. Each of the  complainants paid Rs.39,000/-   towards earnest money  and Rs.1000/- towards processing fees. Each of the complainants were allotted  HIG-B Core house respectively by letter dtd.03.03.2005. After deposit they were asked to deposit Rs.3,51,280/-  each  as balance cost of the houses. Some of the complainants requiring to avail loan from the bank  to meet the payment of the balance dues applied for  NOC from the OP. After availing loan they deposit Rs.3,51,000/- each  towards full and final settlement of the cost of houses.  After acquiring possession, they found that  the houses were having many defects.  The complainant took the matter to the notice of the OP. The concerned Project Engineer wrote letter to the  Head office   at Bhubaneswar  in respect of HIG-B Houses, In the meantime  each of the complainants paid Rs.60,970/- on repairing cost but the OP inspite of receiving   the cost  had enhanced the cost of houses  directing each of the complainant  to pay the differential price by  31.05.2006. The Project Engineer insisted   to pay such enhanced cost. The complainants made representation  to reduce  the price  of the house  but the OPs   did not agree to it. So, alleging about deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.                 The OP No.3 is set ex- parte.

5.                  The OP No.1 & 2  filed written version stating that as per brochure  they have enhanced the cost  and house was allotted  “As is  where is basis”. They averred that  the houses have been given in good condition.  Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.  

6.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                    “ On the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the complaint is allowed in part on contest against the OPs 1 & 2 and ex-parte  against the OP No.3. Each of the complainants are held liable to pay an amount of Rs.41,408/- towards the HIG-B houses allotted to each of them under the Project at Rourkela. This anount be paid by them in two quarterly installments commencing from one month from the date of communication of this order to both the parties. The compensation for mental agony is fixed at Rs.2000/- and litigation cost is assessed at Rs.1000/- payable by the OPs to each of the complainants. This shall be reduced from the sum payable by the complainants to the Board. Accordingly, each of the complainants would be liable to pay Rs.38,408/- in two quarterly installments.”

7.            Learned counsel for the appellant  strenuously submitted that    learned District Forum has committed error in law by imposing  compensation and cost when the complainants were asked to pay differential amount. She also submitted that when the house has been given on   “As is where is basis” the question  of payment of repaid cost of the  house does not arise. She also submitted that each of the complainants  are required  to get their houses in order   by spending money  for which  payment of compensation and cost  to  the complainant does not merit.  So, she submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.             It is admitted fact that the complainants  have applied to the OP to avail HIG-B  core house by the complainants. It is not in dispute that the each of the complainants paid Rs.39,000/- at  first instance  and further paid Rs.3,90,000/- towards cost of the house but the OP enhanced the cost to Rs.4,51,250/-. It is also not in dispute that the complainant  made allegation about  damages to the house while they took possession. The brochure   does not  disclose that the house has been given on   “As is where is basis”. The OPs have not proved  that the complainants were handed over possession of the houses with good condition though same was allotted by the OP.  In the instant case, the complainants   are  to pay the  enhanced cost  and the learned District Forum has rightly  passed the impugned order in this regard.  We have  also gone through same so far enhancement of cost and damage are  concerned. We found that there is deficiencies in construction work  and  the repair cost, each of the complainants spent Rs.19,562/-.There is no serious objection to  it  by OP.  When  each of the complainants spent  the above amounts  for repairing, that should be deducted from the enhanced cost. Therefore, we found nothing   to interfere with the impugned order.

                In the result,   we direct  that the impugned order should be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed.

               The appeal being  devoid of merit stands dismissed.  No cost.   

             Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

               DFR be sent back forthwith.