Full Judgment Text
2009(6) SCR 434
ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD
v.
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
(Civil Appeal No.2599 of 2009)
APRIL 16, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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.