The complainant/appellant was allotted a residential flat by the respondent Housefed Punjab, which is a public sector organization, at Co-operative Housing Complex, Kapurthala vide allotment letter dated 23.01.2009. The price of the flat according to the complainant was fixed at Rs.28,75,000/-. Before delivery of the possession of the flat, the respondent issue a notice dated 28.07.2015 to the complainant/appellant demanded a sum of Rs.18,28,828/-. Disputing the aforesaid demand, the complainant/appellant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which inter-alia stated that the price of the flat fixed at the time of allotment was tentative and the final cost was to be worked out after completion of the project. It was also pointed out in the written version that the complainant was obliged to pay the increased cost of the flat in terms of clause 8 of the allotment letter. 3. The State Commission having dismissed the complaint finding no merit in the same, the appellant/complainant is before this Commission. 4. Clause 8 of the allotment letter dated 23.01.2009 which has been reproduced in the order of the State Commission, reads as under: “8. The exact/final cost of the flat shall be worked out after the completion of the flat but before handing over the possession of the flat. The cost of difference due to allotment of floor, change in covered area of flat or due to any other reason whatsoever, the same shall be payable by the allottee at the time of the possession. The price is liable to increase due to variation in plinth area, scope of work, change in specification, design, increase in cost of land, rate of interest, amount of interest, increase in the cost of raw materials or for any other reason and the same shall be binding upon you.” 5. It would thus be seen that the respondent was entitled to increase the price of the flat on account of variety of factors including variation in plinth area, variation in the scope of work, change in specification, design, increase in cost of land, increase in the interest rate, increase in raw material etc. and such increase was binding upon the allottee. 6. The respondent, in the demand letter filed before the District Forum, gave the following break-up of the demand raised by it: Sr. No. | Detail | Amount | 1. | Tentative cost of the flat | 28,75,000/- | 2. | Final cost of the flat | 35,47,000/- | 3. | Difference between final cost and tentative cost | 6,72,000/- | 4. | Interest upto 31.07.2015 if any | 6,19,667/- | 5. | Total (2 + 4) | 41,66,667/- | 6. | Payment already made | 23,37,839/- | 7. | Balance payment (5-6) | 18,28,828/- |
7. In the written version filed before the State Commission, the following were stated to be the factors responsible for resenting in the cost of construction: S.No. | Reasons for increase in the price | Expenditure on the basis of the rough cost estimate in lakhs | Actual expenditure in lakhs | Increased cost in lakhs | % | 1 | Rough estimate cost prepared in 2008 on the basis of which the scheme was launched and allotment was made and due to increase in building material because of its shortage, the final cost increased. | 221160000 | 274968000 | 53808000 | 24.33% | 2 | Due to increase in price index and contractor had to be compensated for the general rise in prices of labour and material (excluding the materials supplied at fixed rates by Housefed) in accordance with the relevant provisions of in the contract. | Nil | 5467185/- | 5467185/- | 2.47% | 3 | Increase in Service Tax by Government of India | 6052733/- | 9901790/- | 3849057/- | 1.74% | 4 | For setting up the STP Plant and Double Plubbing System and Rain Water Harvesting Well in view of instructions of Ministry of Environment & Forest | Nil | 4914653/- | 4914653/- | 2.22% | 5 | As per the norms of PSPCL, HT/LT lines had to be laid down. | Nil | 9360000/- | 9360000/- | 4.23% | 6 | Because of excess expenditure by the Municipal Committee in laying the sewerage line | Nil | 1382275/- | 1382275/- | 0.62% | 7 | Increase in labour cess | 1489235/- | 2002789/- | 51354/- | 0.23% | 8 | Interest on the loan obtained by the Housefed | 23332904/- | 43261461/- | 19928557/- | 9.01% | 9 | Payment to the PSPCL for feeder line | Nil | 196-1801/- | 19601801/- | 0.88% | 10 | Increase in expenses due to change in specifications keeping in view the location of the site | Nil | 2426000/- | 2426000/- | 1.09% | 11 | Building Application Fee | 1035700/- | 2752061/- | 1716361/- | 0.78% |
The break-up of the increase in the cost of construction given by the OP before the State Commission would show that the said increase was in conformity with clause 8 of the allotment letter. The complainant/appellant therefore, is bound by the aforesaid increase and liable to pay the same to the respondent. The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being devoid of any merits, is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. |
