(6)

Sh. Anil Kumar son of Sh. Geeta Ram, H.No.T-53-C Type III, Old Railway Colony, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana).

                                      ... Complainant.

Versus

1.       Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Offices Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.       General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, c/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.       Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, c/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

... Opposite Parties.

(7)

Sh. Subhash Chand Hooda son of Sh. Hukam Singh Hooda, resident of House No.48, Sector 16, Panchkula.

                                      ... Complainant.

Versus

1.       Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Offices Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.       General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, c/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.       Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, c/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

... Opposite Parties.

(8)

Sh. Ashwani Kumar son of Shr. Raj Kumar, resident of H.No.594-E, Type II, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala (Punjab).

                                      ... Complainant.

Versus

1.       Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Offices Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.       General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, c/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.       Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, c/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

... Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. A.K. Tiwari, Proxy counsel for Sh. Yogesh Saini, Counsel for OPs.

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.                      By this order we propose to dispose of the above mentioned eight connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.

2.                      The facts are culled out from Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2013 titled as Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization & Ors.

3.                      In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the year 2008, the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (hereinafter referred to as IRWO) launched a housing scheme at VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab).  However, as the price fixed by the IRWO (opposite parties) was very high, therefore, nobody applied.  Resultantly, the IRWO floated another scheme in July 2010 namely reopened Railway Group Housing Scheme 2010 for allotment of flats in Rail Vihar at VIP Road, Zirakpur near Chandigarh Phase-1.  As per the brochure of the scheme, three types of flats were to be allotted i.e. Type II, III and IV. 

                   According to the complainant, he applied for allotment of a flat in Type-Z-III category, Phase-1 vide his application dated 22.9.2010 and in response to the same he was allotted a type III dwelling unit vide allotment letter dated 7.3.2011 (C-2) for a sum of Rs.26.18 lacs which was to be paid in instalments.  The complainant paid the instalments as and when due and in all paid a sum of Rs.21.00 lacs i.e. 80%. 

                   According to the complainant, the IRWO had assured to deliver the possession upto December 2012 but it even failed to start the construction.  However, the complainant received letter dated 11.1.2013 (C-6) whereby the price of the flats was increased.  The complainant, and other allottees of dwelling units in Phase-1, represented vide letter dated 6.2.2013 (C-7) against the enhancement in the value of the dwelling units.  The opposite parties sent their reply vide letter dated 5.3.2013 (C-8) explaining the reasons for increase in the price.

                   According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties in increasing the price of the dwelling units is totally illegal and arbitrary and the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence this complaint

4.                      In their written reply the opposite parties admitted that the complainant applied for the booking of the flat and that he deposited the installments due.  However, it has been denied that the IRWO had assured to deliver the possession by December 2012.  It has been averred that the progress of the work and changes, if any, in the project were intimated to the complainant.  It has further been averred that the cost given in the brochure was purely tentative and as per IRWO’s rules the allottees had to pay the increased cost of the dwelling unit.   It has been admitted that the letter dated 8.1.2013 was issued to the complainant which contained the actual expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred. The remaining averments have been denied being wrong.

                   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made

5.                      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                      At the outset, it is relevant to refer to the prayer made by the complainant in his complaint.  The prayer clause of the complaint is reproduced as under :-

            “Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that the present complaint may kindly be accepted and the impugned letter dated 11.01.2013 (Ann. C-6) may kindly be set aside and the Ops may kindly be directed not to charge the increased amount of Rs.6.77 lakhs as mentioned in Ann. C-6.

            It is, further prayed that the O.Ps be also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony caused by the O.Ps alongwith litigation expenses.

            It is also prayed that any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper may kindly be passed in the interest of justice.”

7.                      Hence, the core question to be decided by this Forum is whether the opposite parties can increase the rate of the dwelling units and whether the same amounted to deficiency in service?

8.                      Annexure C-6 is the letter dated 8/11.1.2013 whereby the opposite parties increased the rates of the dwelling units as under :-

9.                      In this regard, the plea of the opposite parties is that the price mentioned in the brochure, as well as in the letter dated 7.3.2011 (C-2), whereby the dwelling unit in question was booked, was not final and rather it was tentative.  In order to substantiate their plea, the opposite parties have relied upon clause 6.1 of the brochure which reads as under:-

                                    “6.1     Tentative area and approximate costs of different types of dwelling units are indicated in Table-1 below”

The opposite parties have also relied upon note 3 of clause 6 of the brochure (C-1), which reads as under :-

“3.       The cost given in the table above are purely tentative based on current prices and may increase depending on escalation in labour and material cost, as well as alterations in design and specifications or any other unforeseen reasons.  Actual cost would be payable by Allottees.  In addition Equilisation Charges have to be paid as per Annexure-III.  Equilisation charges are to bring you at par with those joined the scheme earlier.”

Reliance has also been placed upon clause 9.5 of the brochure, which reads as under ;-

                   “9.5     The Project accounts may not be closed at the time of occupation of houses by the allottees.  The last instalment payment shall, therefore, be considered tentative.  As and when the accounts are closed, the allottees will be advised of the final actual cost and the difference between the final actual cost and the cost recovered will be payable by the allottees concerned.”

Even the letter dated 7.3.2011 (C-2) mentions “The tentative cost of the Z-III type unit is Rs.26,18000+service tax @ 2.575% + EC…..”. 

10.                   Hence, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the price of the dwelling unit was tentative.  Once the price was tentative, the opposite parties were well within their right to increase the same.  In fact, the opposite parties vide their letter dated 8/11.1.2013 (C-6) have also explained the circumstances warranting increase in the price of the flats.  It is not even the case of the complainant that the opposite parties were entitled to enhance the price of the flats upto a certain level/percentage only.  

11.                   Still further, the complainant has also appended his signatures on the declaration attached with the “Application Form for Booking” whereby he undertook that “I also undertake to abide by all rules and instructions that may be issued from time to time by Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO).  I have read the information in this Brochure and fully understand the contents.”  Thus the terms and conditions of the application form and brochure were fully binding upon him and he cannot wriggle out of the same.  

12.                   Resultantly, the complainant has not been able to prove any act of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

13.                    In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

14.                   Similar order is passed in the other connected consumer complaints, mentioned above.

15.                   Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.10.2013.

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg