1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 13.07.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No 720 of 2014 in which order dated 16.07.2013 of Second Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.1171 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 13.07.2016 of the State Commission. 2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 720 of 2014 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioners were OPs and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in CC no. 1171 of 2013. 3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 27.10.2016. Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 02.11.2023. . Due to non appearance despite service, respondent was proceeded ex parte. 4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant applied for a high income group category flat in multi-storey housing scheme, Mewar Apartment situated at Haldi Ghati Marg, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jaipur launched by the OP. The Complainant being successful in the lottery, an allotment letter was issued and demand was raised by the OP which was deposited by the Complainant. The OP issued possession letter and Flat No. B-101 was allotted to the Complainant. The OP issued possession letter, however, the facilities like electricity, water, lift, road, transformer, common facilities etc. were not provided as per brochure. The facilities were not provided till December 2012 and the works like power backup of lift, grand land scrapping, jogging track, office of the society, guard room were incomplete. The OP had taken money from the complainant for construction of parking and land value of Mewar Apartment premises but still demanded parking charges separately and due to compulsion, the complainant deposited Rs.58,247/- as parking charges. It was told that 70% would be open and green area but in that places also, parking has been made. Therefore, open and green area of the Mewar Apartment has become negligible. The OP did not provide promised facilities to the complainant even after depositing the due amount. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 27.6.2014 allowed the Complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 13.07.2016 dismissed the appeal of the OP. Therefore, the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP. 5. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 13.07.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds: (i) In other similar matters regarding same project / apartment in which similar demands were raised by the Complainant as there was similar issue before the District Forum as well as similar relief given by the State Commission, this Commission set aside the order of the State Commission for refund and payment of interest and directed payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and the present case is squarely covered by said decision. (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court has already dismissed the SLP against the other similar order and, therefore, orders of this Commission has attained finality. (iii) The offer booklet never stated that parking would be free or that price of the flat including the parking. Merely because the booklet contains that there would be provision for parking, does not mean that parking would be free of cost. (iv) In terms of registration mentioned in Booklet, it has been specifically stated that allotment of the flat would be subject to the Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws of the Board issued from time to time. (v) As per clause 14 of the Scheme Booklet, interest @ 6% p.a. was paid as per the Scheme for the delay in handing over possession of the flat and, therefore, no dispute can be raised on this count of delay. (vi) The complainant did not raise any objection at the time of taking the possession regarding construction of the flat and inspection of the same. (vii) Clause 17 of the booklet states that price of the flat determined by the Board would be final and binding and no issues with regard to the same would be raised. (viii) Under Principles of Cost, 2010, the price / cost of house is determined taking into consideration the additional charges levied for parking. The parking charges have to be levied over and above the price of the flat as the price of the flat does not include the cost of construction of the parking and complainant is under an obligation to pay the parking charges. (ix) As per clause 20 of the Booklet, the applicant is liable to pay various charges which have not been included in the price of the house and parking charge is one such charge which the applicant is liable to pay for the parking as per rules. The rate of parking charges is clearly mentioned in the costing principles and same is also reflected in the allotment letter. The complainant could have refused the payment if he did not want to avail the provision of parking. However, the complainant without any protest made all the payments. Even the allotment letter clearly stated that parking charges would be 5% stilt parking and 2.5% for open parking. No dispute was raised by the complainant regarding the same at the time of allotment, payment or taking the possession. (x) Para 26 of the booket makes it clear that after making himself duly conversant with the flat and the property, the Complainant took the possession. (xi) Housing Board has determined the price of the flat and the parking in accordance with costing principles, and the Consumer Forums do not have jurisdiction to decide with regard to price of the house / flat. (xii) Clause 26, 27 and 28 state that the Board has full rights to make changes in the charges and complainant is liable to make the payments and after taking the possession, complainant cannot raise dispute with regard to completion of project. (xiii) Petitioner Board reserves the right to make changes in the project and complainant had not raised any such dispute at the time of taking possession of the flat. 6. Heard counsel of the petitioner. On account of absence despite notice, Respondent was proceeded ex-parte. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, and records of State Commission and District Forum are summed up below. 6.1 Counsel for the Petitioner repeated the points which are stated in para 5, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here. 7. During the hearing, it was submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that present case is covered by the orders of this Commission in RP No. 4338 of 2014 and 4427 of 2014 both decided on 29.07.2015 and, therefore, the case may be decided with accordance with the orders of the said RPs and the appeal filed against the said two orders have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.11.2015. 8. The orders issued by this Commission in RP No. 4338 of 2014 and 4427 of 2014, both decided on 29.07.2015, are applicable to the present case due to their similar facts concerning the same project, wherein similar demands and issues were raised. Upon thorough examination of the documents, orders, and other relevant records, we hold that the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the OP for their failure to provide facilities as advertised in the booklet. Consequently, the reliefs granted by the lower forums are liable to be modified in light of this determination. 9. As a result, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is partially allowed. The impugned order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 720 of 2014, is partially modified. The Opposite Party ( OP) is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation within a period of 30 days. Failure to comply will render the OP liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum until payment is made. The remaining directions regarding the refund of different amounts are set aside. Accordingly, Revision Petition is allowed. 10. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
