Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       This petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) in challenge to the Order dated 19.07.2019 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (the ‘State Commission’) in appeal no. 566 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 19.03.2019 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur-III (the ‘District Commission’) in complaint no. 1623 of 2012.

2.       Heard the learned counsel at admission. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 19.03.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 19.07.2019 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       The facts of the case, succinctly put, are that the complainant registered with the petitioner housing board for a residential flat under a self-financing scheme on payment of an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The tentative costing of the flat in question, initially indicated at the time of advertising the scheme, was subsequently revised upwards. Aggrieved with the escalation in the cost, the complainant made correspondence with the housing board and inter alia sent a legal notice, asking that the cost be kept as initially advertised. Not receiving any reply from the housing board she filed a complaint before the District Commission on 29.09.2008, praying that the flat in question be delivered at the cost as initially advertised. She also asked for compensation and “any other relief in favour of the complainant and against the OPs”.

The District Commission decided the complaint on contest. It did not interfere with the upward revision in cost made by the housing board. However it ordered that the amount of Rs. 60,000/- paid for registration be refunded to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.09.2008 with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

The housing board appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the evidence, concurred with the finding of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal, observing that there was “no error” in the District Commission’s Order.

As such this petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below.

4.       We find no palpable crucial misappreciation of evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require fresh de novo re-appraisal in revision. We also find no jurisdictional error, or a point of law erroneously adjudged, or miscarriage of justice. The award made by the District Commission, as affirmed by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the present case. We find nothing that may call for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

5.       We may but make it explicit and categorical that the orders of the two fora below have been passed in the facts, circumstances and specificities of the present case, alone, the facts may vary from case to case. Mechanically and unthinkingly taking the present case as a precedent shall be avoided by the two fora below. The orders of the two fora below shall not be construed to in any manner mean that they have added to or subtracted from any financial, technical or administrative rule(s) of the housing board. Specifically, the tentative costing, as initially advertised, is decidedly subject to subsequent revision / escalation as per the financial, technical and administrative rules of the housing board (adopted uniformly for all similarly situate allottees / persons, without arbitrariness or discrimination).

6.       With this explicit observation, the revision petition is dismissed. The award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, is confirmed.  The petitioner housing board shall comply with the award forthwith, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

7.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition as well as to the State Commission and the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.