ORDER (ORAL) Challenge in these three Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Rajasthan Housing Board and its functionaries, is to the common order dated 25.05.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.1533, 1534 and 1535 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 27.10.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaints No.1253, 1251 and 1252 of 2015 and has thus, dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners herein. 2. In the first place, while allowing the Complaints filed by the Respondents herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in raising additional demands, vide their revised reservation notice dated 06.05.2015, in respect of flats allotted to them, under the Self Financing Scheme, 2013 (S+11 flats) in Sector 8, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to refund to the Complainants the amount recovered from them as -3- interest on account of the delay in payment of amounts towards sixth and seventh installments, as demanded vide the afore-stated revised reservation letter dated 06.05.2015, within two months from the date of its order, failing which the Petitioners were made liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. Additionally, the District Forum had also awarded compensation of ₹5,000/- and the litigation expenses quantified at ₹5,000/-, with the same default stipulation, to each of the Complainants. 3. Briefly stated the material facts, giving rise to the filing of the Complaints are as follows: The Complainants had applied for allotment of flats in the afore-noted Scheme on 11.03.2014. The letters of reservation of the flats, containing the terms of allotment as well as the Schedule of payment of the estimated reserved cost of the flats were issued to them. Clause 1 of the terms and conditions, in the said reservation letters, relevant for the present cases, is extracted below: This reservation letter is being issued on the basis of estimated cost only.The final cost will be calculated after allotment of house by way of lottery, the balance demand amount has to be deposited within such time as it will be mentioned in the allotment letter. 4. It appears that before issue of the final allotment letter, as stipulated in the afore-extracted condition of reservation, revised reservation letters dated 06.05.2015, the revised estimated reserved cost of the flats, were issued to the Complainants. They were required -4- to pay revised sixth and seventh installments of ₹6,20,000/-. In the said revised reservation letter, it was stated that if the amounts as demanded were not deposited as per the revised Schedule, given therein, the Complainants would be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the delayed period and if the installment was not at all deposited, the registration of flats in their favour was liable to be cancelled by initiating action as per Rules and Regulations governing the said allotments. According to the Complainants, faced with the threat of cancellation of allotments, they deposited the amounts as demanded, albeit under protest. 5. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioners, in issuing revised reservation letter dated 06.05.2015, demanding the afore-noted two additional amounts, which were allegedly more than double the amounts, they were required to pay under the initial letter of reservation dated 14.03.2014, subjecting them to grave mental agony, the Respondents filed the Complaints before the District Forum, inter-alia, seeking a direction to the Petitioners not to press for payment of the said amounts; award of compensation for the mental agony and interest etc. As noted above, the Complaints were accepted by the District Forum with the afore-noted directions to the Petitioners, which have been upheld by the State Commission. 6. Hence, the present Revision Petitions. -5- 7. The short ground on which the challenge to the orders passed by the State Commission, is laid, is apart from the fact that theissue raised in the Complaints pertained to the costing of the flats, which issue is beyond the Jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, under the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the Complainants were liable to pay interest, which formed part of the cost of the flats and hence, there was no illegality in the demand of the afore-stated amounts from the Complainants, pending final determination of the cost of the flats. 8. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts at hand, we are of the view that the Revision Petitions are bereft of any merits. At the outset we may note that the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners candidly admits that there was no default on the part of the Complainants in making requisite deposits of the instalments demanded in terms of the reservation letter dated 11.03.2014, as well as the amounts demanded under the final allotment letter dated 29.08.2016, except for a nominal delay of 2-3 days in some case. In arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioners could not demand any additional amount in between the period of issue of the first reservation letter dated 11.03.2014 and the final allotment letter on 29.08.2016, the District Forum had observed as follows: 10. It is also argued on behalf of opponents that the complainant admitted the condition that he will be bound to deposit the amount as and when demanded by opponent otherwise allotment may be cancelled. There is -6- no doubt regarding this condition that the complainant was bound to deposit the amount as per demand, but it was confined to the extent that the demand has to be raised as mentioned in the main reservation letter annexure-1. If, the complainant failed to deposit the amount as per that demand than the allotment letter could be cancelled, but the complainant has not committed any default in this. Therefore in our opinion the demand of additional amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in revised reservation letter annexure-2 by opponent was not appropriate and the complainant was not bound to deposit the above additional amount of Rs.3,25,000/- on dated 14.7.15 and Rs.3,25,000/- on dated 14.10.15. The complainant has deposited the final amount as per allotment letter, for which the opponent was free to decide the cost. 9. Having carefully perused the terms of the letter of reservation dated 11.03.2014, containing the afore-extracted Condition No.(1), which clearly stipulates that after the issue of the reservation letter, showing the estimated reserved cost of the flat and spelling out the Schedule of payments, the balance amount towards the cost of the flat was to be paid by the Complainants only on determination of the final cost of the flats, within the period to be mentioned in the allotment letter. Evidently, no further amount had to be paid in the interregnum. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the afore-said view taken by both the Fora below, on a correct interpretation of the afore-noted Condition in the reservation letter. It is clear from the afore-stated facts that no issue of the costing of the flats is involved in the instant cases, as is sought to be pleaded on behalf of the Petitioners. If the allottees were bound by the terms and conditions of allotment of flats, the Petitioners were equally bound by the same. After the issue -7- of reservation letters, they were estopped from unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of allotment. In that view of the matter, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly, with costs quantified at ₹5,000/- in each of the cases. The costs shall be remitted by the Petitioners directly to the Complainants by means of Demand Draft in their names, within four weeks from today.
|
