Petitioner was allotted flat No.26D in Mansarovar Apartment, Sector 61 at a tentative cost of Rs.15,71,000/-.  According to the petitioner, he had deposited the installments as per letter of allotment/brochure and possession of the flat was given to him on 29.3.2000, whereas according to the brochure, possession of the flat

-2-

was to be given in October, 1999.  Later on, the respondent fixed the price of the allotted flat at Rs.16,82,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner under protest. 

After depositing the amount, petitioner filed the complaint alleging therein that the respondent had failed to explain the basis on which the rate of interest was charged in spite of several applications made by him; that the respondent had included in the cost of flat the subsidy amount given to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) which was completely illegal; that the charging of Rs.72,000/- after fixing the final cost of the flat after five years is completely unfair; that the flat given to the complainant suffered from many defects and sub-standard quality material was used; that the rate of interest being charged by the respondent was higher than the market rate and the financial institution.  Thus, alleging that the complainant is entitled to refund of the subsidy and increased cost of plot with interest, the complaint was filed.  Compensation on account of expenditure incurred for rectifying the defects in the flat was also prayed for.  

-3-

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that by no stretch of reasoning, the rate of interest can be said to be unreasonable, particularly when the rate of interest being charged and terms and conditions of allotment of the flat had been disclosed at the outset and while handing over possession and registration of sale deed.  It was for the petitioner to accept the terms or not.  Once the allotment is accepted with the terms and conditions of the brochure and also those clearly stipulated in the allotment letters, the allottees have no option to resile from the terms and plead that the rate of interest was unreasonable or the cost was excessive or that some hidden costs like subsidy had been illegally realized. 

          We also agree with the State Commission that the petitioner had failed to point out the defects while taking possession of the house.  The defects were pointed out by the petitioner at the time of filing of the complaint i.e. after 1½ years of taking of the possession.  The petitioner was debarred from raising this point at that belated

-4-

stage. 

It may be stated here that the consumer fora are courts of limited jurisdiction and the point raised by the petitioner cannot be decided by the courts having plenary jurisdiction and not limited jurisdiction.   The petitioner would be well advised to get his disputes, if any, settled by a civil court.  Revision Petition stands dismissed.

          However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance in any other forum, as per advice, along with an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSP. S. G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583 in respect of time spent before the consumer fora.