Estate Manager, M.P. Housing Board vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short the 'National Commission'). By the

impugned order the National Commission set aside the order passed by the Madhya

Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the 'State

Commission') The respondents had filed complaints before the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (in short the 'District Forum') making a grievance

that the present appellant Board cannot charge 10% extra charge for a corner plot

and 5% extra charge for best location plot. According to the complainant these

amounts are not payable as the appellant Board had accepted the amounts payable

without such charges. The District Forum accepted the complaints and directed that

the charges levied and demanded cannot be collected. Questioning the correctness

of the orders passed by the District Forum the State Commission was moved by way

of appeal by the present appellant. The appeal was allowed. It was specifically noted

that the District Forum had not kept in view the fact that there is a provision in the manual issued by the Board in the year 1978 about such levy. The State Forum also

referred to various documents like the Board's advertisement relating to registration

for Higher Income Group Houses, Indore. The order of District Forum was set aside

by the State Forum. Questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the State

Commission revision petitions were filed before the National Commission which was

allowed by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Board submitted that the National

Commission did not take note of various relevant documents like the advertisement

relating to registration for Higher Income Group Houses, letter of allotment and the

terms and conditions of registration and allotment. It was also pointed out that in the

allotment letter the demand was made specifically for 10% for corner plot charges

and 5% for best location plots. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand

submitted that the District Forum and National Commission took note of the fact that

since the house was allotted after draw of lots in the lottery, there is no question of

the Board making a demand in the manner done.

5. Various documents referred to by learned counsel for the appellant Board

leaves no manner of doubt that the demand was authorised in terms and conditions

of registration of allotment which has been specifically indicated as follows:

As per the prevailing Rules of the Board, on house situated in the corner a

price of 10% and house situated on the main road a separate price of 5% shall

have to be given. In addition to the average land of the house the price of more

land shall be taken separately which will be informed as per the actual map

certificate at the time of allotment of the house. As per rules these rate and

other charges shall be payable separately.

6. The National Commission was of the view that because by sheer chance of

luck the draw of plot in the lottery the plot was allotted the principle relating to

charging the additional amounts for the best location or corner plot cannot be

applicable. This conclusion is contrary to the advertisement made for registration of

the house. It has been specifically mentioned therein that the registration of the

house shall be determined by the lottery and the terms and conditions of registration

and allotment specifically provided for additional charges. That being so, the view

taken by the National Commission cannot be sustained and is set aside. In other

words, the order passed by the State Commission is maintained while those of the

District Forum and the National Commission get nullified.

The appeal is allowed.

SLP(C) No. 2557/2005, 2625/2005, 2702/2005, 2775/2005, 2785/2005:

Leave granted.

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No......./2009 @ SLP(C) No.

20606/2004 these appeals deserve to be allowed. The impugned order of the

National Commission so far as it relates to nullification of charges for the corner plot

and the best location plots in each case is set aside. Additionally, on the facts of the

case the direction for levy of interest cannot be maintained and the interest directed

to be paid stand set aside.

The appeals are allowed.