1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 24.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.115/2016 in which order dated 12.01.2016, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Reva (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 282/2012 was challenged, inter alia praying to:-

(i)    set aside the order passed by the State Commission;

(ii)   to direct OP to give possession of the flat to the complainant with complete development work, basic facilities and according to the statements made in the brochure;

(iii) direct OP to remove all the shortcomings or to give compensation of 5 lacs;

(iv) reduce the cost of the plot payable at the time of amount mentioned in the advertisement;

(v) direct OPs to pay interest @ 16 % p.a. on the amount deposited of Rs. 15,38,000/- from the date of deposit until handing over possession and to pay Rs. 2 lacs on account of mental compensation and costs of case

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as complainant) was Appellant and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Respondents in the said FA/115/2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was complainant and Respondent(s) were OPs before the District Forum in the CC no. 282/2012.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 31.08.2018.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 23.03.2023 (Petitioner/Complainant) and 05.09.2023, 18.09.2023 (Respondents/OPs) respectively.

4.  Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

 The complainant deposited Rs.1,45,000/- as a registration amount for an HIG Super Deluxe House based on the advertised projected price of Rs.14,16,000/-. However, the Board (OPs) increased the price to Rs.15,38,000/- without justification, demanding Rs.4,42,000/- as the balance. The OPs increased the price twice without proper reasons. The complainant claims that construction work hadn't commenced, and no development work was undertaken despite collecting the final installment. The allotted house's surroundings were dilapidated, lacking roads and proper infrastructure. Unjustified charges, like a better location fee of Rs.34,713/-, were imposed on the complainant's house, despite it not meeting the criteria. The complainant alleges that the Board (OP) violated prescribed pricing norms by charging Rs.2800/- per sq. meter for the plot against the standard rate of Rs.2400/- per sq. meter. The complainant reported discrepancies in the house's condition during an inspection. Issues included a kuchcha road, open drains, leakages, visible cracks in the walls, and an overall ruined appearance. The complainant approached the appropriate forum seeking relief. Requests included rectifying the deficiencies, adjusting the price to the initially advertised amount, handing over possession of the house, and compensation for mental distress and litigation costs.

5.       Vide Order dated 12.01.2016, in the CC no. 282/2012 the District Commission has directed OPs to get the flat repaired and to hand over the possession to the complainant on making payment of the dues by the complainant

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated12.01.2016 of District Commission, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 24.08.2017 in FA No.115/2016 has ---

1. Partly allowed the appeal and directed OPs to repair deficiencies of the house and directed OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as compensation 

(ii)   Directed complainant to deposit full and final amount payable to the OPs under conditions shown in the advertisement of sale of house.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 24.08.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The District Forum allowed the respondents/OPs Board an extended period of more than one year to submit a reply, thereby violating Section 13(1)(A) of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission, in its order, overlooked this significant issue, which is in contradiction to the provisions stipulated in the Act. Additionally, the State Commission did not address the petitioner's/complainant’s plea regarding Circular No. 34/1999. This circular suggested that the OP Board had the authority to execute a Lease Deed on the plot after charging its value at the time of registration. Despite multiple requests, the OPs Board failed to comply with this, constituting unfair trade practice.

2. The State Commission overlooked a critical admission by OP-1 in their correspondence, where they acknowledged the rejection of their layout plan by the Town and Country Planning authority. This rejection hindered them from executing Sale Deeds for the current allottees, a pivotal aspect contrary to legal provisions. Despite the complainant having paid the total sale value of the flat on a specific date, the development work remained incomplete. The OPs failed to address repeated requests for development completion and information requests under the Right to Information Act. Additionally, the State Commission did not consider several legal precedents presented by the complainant that could have influenced the order. Moreover, the OPs initially charged the complete selling price under the Self-financed Scheme but later increased the value, a move inconsistent with established guidelines.

3. The State Commission overlooked crucial aspects in the case where the complainant faced delays in acquiring possession of the flat despite completing registration and paying the total selling price. This delay constitutes a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, aspects that were not adequately addressed in the Commission's order. Furthermore, the demand for a better location charge from the complainant, despite the property not meeting the criteria specified in the brochure and circular, was a significant concern that went unaddressed. The Commission's directive of a mental compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000 contradicts the provisions outlined in the Consumer Protection Act, especially considering the complainant's request for interest on the deposited amount until possession. Furthermore, the construction of a 25-feet wide road instead of the indicated 80-feet wide road, as per the approved brochure and layout by the Town and Country Planning, was not adequately addressed in the State Commission's order.

8.       Heard learned counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

1. The counsel for the complainant contended that the State Commission's order overlooked crucial elements, including the mention of "Property for Sale" in the advertisement, which is against the law. Additionally, the circular issued by the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board mandating the execution of the sale deed for the plot initially for the beneficiaries was not duly considered, constituting a deficiency in service as per the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission's failure to take into account the Pricing Committee's decision, which fixed the plot's price in Vindhya Vihar Colony at Rs.2400/- per Sq.mt. while the Board demanded Rs.2800/- per Sq.mt., indicates unfair trade practices and a violation of fundamental rights. The incomplete development work at the project site, despite the Housing Board receiving the entire sale price, was also neglected by the Commission, demonstrating another instance of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

2. The Commission's order neglected to consider guidelines pertaining to corner charge and better location charge, especially since the complainant's plot did not meet the criteria for a better location. The Commission also overlooked a Housing Board circular explaining the non-execution of sale deeds due to the rejection of the layout plan by Gram Nivesh, suggesting unfair trade practices. Moreover, the Commission's decision in the case of MP Housing Board Vs. Anand V. Pethia, RP/3147/2010 dated 12.07.2011, didn't account for Section 301 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act 1956, as the Completion certificate had not been issued by the Municipal Corporation Rewa to the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. The counsel emphasized discrepancies between the layout plan and the actual construction, such as misrepresented road dimensions and missing amenities like parks and an inadequate drainage system, constituting unfair trade practices. Referring to a precedent MP Housing Board (Supra), where compensation was awarded for non-construction of amenities as per the brochure, the counsel seeks similar compensation. They stressed the lack of development work in the colony despite receiving payment, citing a judicial precedent B S Sharma vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, FA/111/2009 where interest at 8% per annum was awarded for delayed possession. They argue that after 15 years since registering for the house and depositing the lump sum price in 2011, the lack of possession is a service deficiency, warranting interest payment under the Consumer Protection Act.

3. The counsel contends that the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board has not complied with the State Commission's order, resulting in the issuance of bailable warrants. They argue that the Housing Board's presented factual report, backed by photos, is false, citing recent images that depict the house in a dilapidated state, with visible damage, open drains, and plaster issues. This discrepancy led to the District Commission issuing bailable warrants against the Housing Board. Additionally, the transfer of Vindhya Bihar Colony to the Municipal Corporation of Rewa without any development work by the Housing Board renders the maintenance charges unjustifiable given the circumstances and goes against the agreed terms and conditions. The counsel challenges the arbitrary assessment of mental compensation by the State Commission, contending that it contradicts established judicial precedents set by both the National Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Specific cases like Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Rajesh Chandra 2004 Latest Caselaw 541 SC and HN Tiwari vs. Bhopal Development Authority are referenced to support this argument.

4. The counsel for Respondents/OPs argued that the Housing Board entered into a construction contract on 27.06.2006 for building HIG Senior Houses under Scheme No.56/12 in Vindhya Vihar Colony Rewa on 18.10 hectares of land. The construction was completed on 12.12.2008, and a completion certificate was issued by the Housing Board to the contractor. A copy of the completion certificate dated 12.12.2008 was submitted as Annexure -1. Advertisement for the sale and registration of houses was issued on 27.09.2008. The petitioner/complainant participated in the draw for allotment on 09.03.2011. The advertisement mentioned that the price of the house mentioned in the advertisement was an estimated price, and the actual price would be informed after the entire construction work was complete, payable by the allottee. The complainant was allotted House No.446, Senior HIG, which was larger in size than initially advertised. The final determination of the price of the house was done on 21.04.2011, fixing the price including the plot at Rs.17,35,608/-, which included better location and corner charges.

5. The complainant had deposited Rs.15.38 Lacs out of the total amount required. The outstanding balance, including lease rent, land conservation expenditure, documentation charges, service tax, earthquake, and fire disaster charges, amounted to Rs.4,29,972/-, which the complainant was required to pay by 30.04.2011. The counsel further argued that All houses constructed by the OP Housing Board were transferred to the Municipal Corporation Rewa via an agreement dated 01.11.2014 (Annexure-2). The Housing Board, after completing the project, requested the Municipal Corporation Rewa to issue a completion certificate for Vidhya Vihar Colony via a letter dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure-3). As per the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, if the Commissioner fails to respond within 15 days of receiving the notice of completion, the completion certificate is deemed to have been issued. Hence, they argue that in this case, the completion certificate is deemed to have been issued. The complainant did not raise the issue of the completion certificate in their complaint, appeal, or in the revision petition.

6. The counsel for OP Board contends that this plea has been introduced to deflect attention from the actual issue of avoiding payment to the Housing Board. They claim to have complied entirely with the order of the State Commission by informing the complainant to pay the outstanding balance and take possession. However, the complainant has not paid the balance amount to date. Consequently, the sale deed has not been executed. The current arrears owed by the complainant amount to Rs.6,36,929/-, plus taxes and interest. They mention that as per the collector's guideline for the year 2023-2024, the cost and marked value of the house are significantly higher than the amount deposited by the complainant, indicating a considerable shortfall. The counsel contends that the complainant has not deposited the balance amount since 30.04.2011, leading to the delay in taking possession. Therefore, they assert that the complainant is responsible for the delay and seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition. Respondent relied on the Supreme Court judgement of Estate Manager, M.P. Housing Bord v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2009) 16 SCC 118.

9.       It is contended by the Complainant that on one hand the District Forum has dismissed the complaint and on the other hand Respondent Board has been ordered to arrange white-washing of the house and if there are cracks in the wall or floor of the house, these should be got repaired by the Board.  The order of the District Forum is contradictory and not based on facts, hence the Board should be directed to fully repair the defects/remove the deficiencies as reported by the Commission in its Inspection Report dated 11.05.2015. 

10.     Complainant contends that as per advertisement, the area of the house was 216 sq. mt. and its price was Rs.14,16,000/-.  Although 10% of this amount i.e. Rs.1,41,600/- only was to be paid as registration amount, but he was made to pay Rs.1,45,000/-.  The said house was to be constructed under the self-financing scheme. Board increased the price from Rs.14,16,000/- to Rs.15,38,000/- and asked the complainant to deposit the balance Rs.4,42,000/- by 28.02.2011, which was done by the complainant before this date.  Hence, the full amount of Rs.15,38,000/-, as demanded by the Board was paid.  However, Board issued another letter dated 21.04.2011, further increasing the price of the house to Rs.18,94,833/- and demanded balance Rs.3,56,833/- plus service tax Rs.70,813/- and earthquake, fire calamity charges of Rs.2326/-, totalling to Rs.4,29,972/-.  Vide this letter dated 21.04.2011 the Board has charged Better Location Charges @5% (Rs.34,713/-) and corner charges @10% (Rs.69,426/-, which is against the guidelines of the Board as the better location charges can be made only if the house is on main highway or in front of park, but the house allotted to the complainant is neither on the main highway nor in front of any park.

11.    Complainant further contends that Board has constituted a price fixation committee and this committee has fixed the price of house in Vindhya Vihar Colony, where the house is located at Rs.2400/- per sq.mt., which was valid till 31.03.2011.  The complainant deposited the entire price before 28.02.2011.  However, Board ignoring the price of Rs.2400/- per sq.mt. fixed by the committee, has arbitrarily demanded price @Rs.2800/- per sq.mt., which amounts to unfair trade practice.  As per letter dated 21.04.2011, premium of developed plot has been fixed at Rs.6,94,260/- (Rs.2800/- per sq.mt. for an area of 247.95 sq.mt.). As per this letter, the development works have been completed and intimation for taking possession has been given, while in reality, no development works have been done in the said colony.  On the complaint of the complainant, an enquiry committee was appointed, who on enquiry found that there is a ‘Kacha road in project area, which is seemingly covered with mud.

12.     It is also alleged by the complainant that District Forum has allowed the written version of OP Board to be accepted beyond the permissible limit of 45 days, which is in violation of guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757. However complainant has not placed on record any evidence in support of his allegation.

13.     Complainant made an application before the District Forum to appoint a Commissioner to verify as to which development works, as claimed by the Board have been completed and which are still incomplete, but District Forum rejected this application. Complainant filed a Revision Petition against the decision of District Forum before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 14.11.2014 set aside the order of District Forum and directed the District Forum to appoint a Commissioner.  The Commissioner inspected the site on 08.05.2015 and submitted a report to the District Commission on 11.05.2015 highlighting several defects in the house and discrepancies in the construction of roads and drains, deviating from the layout plan. Both the complainant and the OP, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, accepted this report without expressing any objections. The District Consumer Commission in Rewa disregarded the Commissioner's report, and on 12.01.2016, an order to dismiss the complaint in an entirely arbitrary manner was issued. In response, the complainant filed a first appeal before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, invoking the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant's argument was acknowledged, highlighting that the deficiencies outlined in the Commissioner's report, appointed by the District Forum, remained unaddressed. Paragraph 10 of the order issued by the State Commission indicated a clear service deficiency on the part of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. Although the State Commission ordered the rectification of the deficiencies outlined in the Commissioner's report in line with the approved layout, map, and plan, they only awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental distress. This compensation order appears to contradict the provisions outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Judicial precedents in such cases emphasize the need for a reasonable relationship between the injury suffered and the compensation awarded.

14.     The State Commission's own acknowledgment in its order stated that despite receiving the entire sale price, the OP Madhya Pradesh Housing Board failed to complete the development work at the project site. Moreover, the houses constructed by them exhibited numerous deficiencies in service. No actions were taken to rectify these deficiencies and errors outlined in the report submitted by the Commissioner appointed by the District Forum. This negligence doesn't just constitute a deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act of 1986; it also falls under the category of unfair trade practice. The complainant registered for a house in 2008, nearly 15 years ago, and in 2011, a house was allotted to the complainant. The entire payment for the house was made before 28.02.2011. However, despite 12 years passing since then, the complainant has not received possession of the house. As a result, the complainant's family is compelled to reside in a rented house, incurring a monthly rent of approximately Rs 15,000/-. The failure of the OP to provide possession despite receiving the entire payment beforehand constitutes a deficiency in service. Additionally, not paying interest to the complainant on the deposited amount violates the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act 2005, the Municipal Corporation Rewa confirmed that no development work has been carried out in Vindhya Bihar Colony Padra Rewa. The Madhya Pradesh Housing Board has transferred Vindhya Bihar Colony to the Municipal Corporation Rewa without undertaking any development work. Despite this, demanding maintenance charges for the upkeep of the colony goes against their standard rules and conditions. According to the standard rule issued by the Board, maintenance charges can only be levied when the upkeep of the colony is managed through a committee formed by the allottees.

15.    The Respondent in its written synopsis states that all the houses constructed by the Respondent Board were transferred to Municipal Corporation  Rewa (MCR) vide agreement dated 01.11.2014.  Pursuant to completion of the project, the Respondent Board vide their letter dated 24.04.2017 requested MCR to issue completion certificate (CC) for Vindhya Vihar Colony.  However, no formal CC was ever issued by MCR.  However, the Respondent Board relying on provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, contends that after the receipt of notice of completion, as the Commissioner has failed for 15 days after the receipt of notice to intimate, and his refusal to grant permission, the CC is deemed to have been issued.  Hence, in the present case, Respondent Board does not have any formal CC issued by MCR, but is treating it a case of deemed CC having been issued. Respondent further stated that Petitioner is as on date in arrears of Rs.6,36,929/-  plus taxes and interest.

16.    The CC in question placed on record is the one which is issued by the Respondent Board itself to the contractor who has executed the work.  It is important here to note that as per agreement dated 01.11.2014, vide which the said project was transferred by Respondent Board to MCR, and which is after the CC issued by Respondent Board issued to the contractor certifying that the said contractor  has duly completed the executers of the work of project in question on 12.12.2008, the said construction and development works were jointly inspected by Engineers  of MCR  and Respondent Board and thereafter a sum of Rs.250 lakhs has been demanded by MCR for rectification/addressing shortcoming detected in developmental works in the said colony.  This goes to show the sanctity and reliability of the CC issued by the Respondent Board to the contractors.  In this scenario, based on a CC “deemed issued” by MCR it cannot be concluded that all the works in the said project are/were complete in all respects. 

17.    The Agreement further states that the said amount of Rs. 250 lakhs shall be used by MCR exclusively for maintenance/upkeep and other developmental works of colony. This contradicts with the earlier statement in the agreement that Rs.250 lakhs was demanded by MCR for rectification/addressing shortcoming in the development works and the same was paid by Respondent Board. Now, whether MCR used this amount for rectification/addressing shortcomings or exclusively for maintenance/upkeep and other developmental works of colony, is not known.  Hence, we see some merit in the contentions of the Petitioner/Complainant that all the developmental works in the said project were not complete in all respects at the time of offering possession.

18. The Petitioner/complainant has placed on record copy of committee’s cost determination chart for various categories, as per which for the HIG (Sr), the rate as per actual fixation of development is Rs.2400/- per sq.mt. which is valid till 31.03.2011. On the other hand, as per letter dated 21.04.2011, the rate charged is Rs.2800/- per sq. mt.  In this regard, Respondent Board in its written version before the District Forum has stated as follows:

“It is admitted that the complaint refers to charging the plot cost at a rate of Rs. 2800/- per square meter. However, the statement mentioning the rate of Rs. 2400/- per square meter for H.I.G. Senior flat, valid until March 31, 2011, as specified in the Housing Board's letter No. 1526 dated 17.06.2009, contradicts the alleged cost deposition timeline provided by the complainant in the year 2009-2010. Therefore, the claim of allotting the plot at the rate of Rs. 2400/-, linked to the amount deposited before 28.02.2011, is not admitted. The actual assessment of the flat's complete cost occurred after its allotment. This comprehensive assessment considered lease rent, service tax, VAT Tax, corner charge, better location, etc., fixing the flat cost at Rs. 2800/- per square meter in accordance with Government/Collector's Guidelines. Additionally, for delayed payments beyond 29.11.13, interest as per the specified date until the payment date shall be applicable as per the Collector Guidelines when executing the Sale deed of the flat.”

19.   We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records, rival contentions of the parties. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the various issues raised by the complainant/Petitioner are decided as follows:-

1. With respect to the rate of premium to be charged, we tend to agree with the contentions of the complainant and hold that OP Board is entitled to charge rate of Rs. 2400 per sq.mt. only. However, they are entitled to charge the rate on the actual area as per allotment letter dated 21.04.2011 i.e. 247.95 sq.mt. rather than 216 sq.mt. as per advertisement.

2. As regards payment of better location charge and corner charge @5% and 10% respectively, the complainant has not placed on record any convincing evidence that the house in question is not having a better location (as defined in the advertisement) and/or not being a corner charge. Hence, we are not inclined to give any directions to OP Board for not charging on these two items.

3. As the complainant has placed on record a reasonable evidence to show that all the development works, as required, were not completed at the time of offer of possession, hence he was justified in not making further payments in accordance with the demand letter 21.04.2011. Hence, we hold that OP Board shall not charge any penalty or delayed/penal interest on the pending payments except simple interest @6% p.a. from the date it was due till the date of actual payment. Hence, keeping in view this order, OP Board shall rework out the amount payable by the Complainant and issue a revised demand letter on the line of demand letter dated 21.04.2011, within 15 days of this order, giving 30 days time to the complainant to deposit this amount. Further, the OP Board shall ensure that all the defects/deficiencies, as pointed out in the Commissioner’s report dated 11.05.2015, if still remain, shall be rectified within 30 days of this order and a joint inspection is arranged with complainant/her representative and representative of the Board to demonstrate/ show to the complainant the satisfactory rectification of all defects/deficiencies. Physical possession of the house in question shall be handed over within 15 days of complainant depositing the balance amount as per revised allotment letter referred to above, subject to a competent officer of the OP Board, not below the rank of Executive Engineer, certifying that all the works, as per required scope and specifications, have been duly completed and al the deficiencies/defects pointed out in the Commission’s report been duly rectified.

4. The complainant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of OP Board and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be adjusted by the OP Board from the amount payable by the Complainant as per revised allotment letter to be issued by the OP Board. RP is disposed off accordingly.      

20.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.