The petitioner/complainant Dr. Babu Lal obtained registration for allotment of an MIG (B category house) under a scheme promulgated by the respondent Board in the year 1984 and deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the registration money.  No allotment was made to him for about 9 years.  A letter dated 13.08.93 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the seed money in three instalments.  The first instalment was to be deposited within one month of the issue of the letter, the second instalment was to be deposited within 7 months of the issue of the letter and the third instalment was to be deposited within 13 months of the issue of the letter.  The complainant/petitioner deposited the first instalment on 29.09.93 and the second instalment on 29.08.98.  It is not known when the third instalment was deposited.  Obviously it must be deposited after 29.08.98, i.e., when the second instalment was deposited.  Counsel for the respondent Board submitted that as per the record the third instalment was deposited in the year 2000.

2.       The respondent Board allotted a shell house to the petitioner/ complainant in the year 2000, for a price of Rs.6,37,892/-.  The aforesaid amount was payable in 156 instalments.  The complainant/petitioner made initial payment demanded by the respondent and took the possession of the house.  This is also the case of the complainant/petitioner that the aforesaid house later developed cracks.  Alleging deficiency in providing services on the part of the respondent Board, he filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the excess payment alleged to have been recovered from him alongwith compensation amounting to Rs.1,75,000/- with interest @18% p.a.  He also sought Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the respondent Board interalia on the ground that despite letter dated 13.08.93, the complainant did not deposit all the instalments in time.  It was also stated in the reply that vide letter dated 16.12.87, the complainant was given option to get allotment under another scheme of the Board on making application in this regard.  It was also alleged in the reply filed by the Board that the complainant had given consent to the allotment vide letter dated 31.07.2000 and deposited the requisite amount on 30.08.2000.  As regards cracks in the house, it was stated in the reply that the construction was within the standards of the Housing Board.

4.       The District Forum vide its order dated 30.11.2004, directed the respondent Board to reduce a sum of Rs.1,77,500/- with interest towards the cost of the house and also pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for inferior construction besides Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Interest @6% p.a. was also awarded to the complainant.

5.       Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the respondent Board approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said Commission vide impugned order dated 12.12.2007, set aside the order passed by the District Forum except to the extent compensation of Rs.20,000/- was granted to the complainant on account of poor quality of the material used in the construction of the shell house.  The interest @9% p.a. from the date of order till realisation and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.3,000/- was also awarded to the complainant/petitioner.  Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6.       The complainant/petitioner has not placed on record the scheme of 1984 under which registration was obtained by him.  In the absence of details of the scheme, it is not possible to know what exactly were the terms and conditions on which the registration was granted to the complainant/petitioner.  This is not the case of the complainant/petitioner that in the said scheme of 1984, the Board had undertaken to allot a residential flat to him in a particular time period.  In other words, though the complainant/petitioner was registered for allotment of a house from the respondent Board, no time frame for such allotment was stipulated in the scheme.

7.       Admittedly, the complainant/petitioner was sent letter 13.08.1993, whereby the seed money was required to be paid by him in three instalments.  It is an admitted case that the first instalment was deposited a few days after the stipulated date whereas the second instalment was deposited after about 5 years thought it ought to have been deposited within 7 months of the issue of the letter.  The third instalment came to be deposited in the year 2000, though it was required to have been deposited within 13 months from the issue of the letter, i.e., by September 1994.  Since the complainant/petitioner did not deposit the requisite seed money in terms of the letter dated 13.08.2013, no benefit from the said letter accrues to him and he cannot claim allotment at the price prevailing on 13.08.1993.

8.       Admittedly, the petitioner accepted the allotment made to him vide allotment letter in the year 2000.  Though, the said letter has also not been filed by the complainant/petitioner, it is not disputed that the letter envisaged allotment of a shell house and not a complete house to him.  In case, the price sought to be charged by the respondent Board was not acceptable to the complainant/petitioner, he could have refused to accept the allotment or alternatively he could have challenged the price demanded by the respondent Board before a civil court or by way a writ petition.

9.       The learned counsel for complainant/petitioner submits that in an earlier scheme of 1982, it was stipulated that the escalation in the cost would not be more than 10 – 12% p.a. and, therefore, the escalation to the extent demanded by way of letter issued in the year 2000 was not justified.  However, no benefit from the terms and conditions of the 1982 scheme can be claimed by the complainant/petitioner since he was not registered under that scheme and this is not his case that the 1984 scheme also had a similar provision restricting the escalation to not more than 10 – 12% p.a.  In any case, it is settled legal proposition that the price of a house cannot be disputed before a Consumer Forum which is concerned only with the deficiency, if any, in providing services to the consumer.  Therefore, neither in law nor on facts, the complainant/petitioner was entitled to any deduction of the price on which the allotment was made to him in the year 2000.

10.     As far as the cracks in the house are concerned, the complainant/petitioner has already been suitably compensated by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission.  I, therefore, do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.