PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Mr. C. M. Makkar, Advocate appearing for the appellant and going through the impugned order dated 15.1.2004, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh in Complaint Case No.903 of 2002.

(2.) The District Forum has directed the respondent not to charge the enhanced price of the flat from the respective complainants. This direction is clearly in consonance with the law laid down by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission] Chief Administrator, PUDA and Another V/s. Shabnam Virk, 2003 3 CPJ 191 decided on 26.8.2003, which reads as under: "as far as the question of pricing is concerned, normally Consumer Forums do not enter into this area, but when we see the statement filed by PUDA explaining the reasons for price escalation of the house, we find good reason to interfere. Mere perusal of the statement reveals that most of the cost escalation is attributed to cost escalation of land. Reasons for this is given out 'land rate of Rs.1,200/- per sq. yd. at the time of advertisement in August, 1995 was revised by Finance Committee to Rs.2,700/- per sq. yd. vide Agenda No.1408 on 26.6.1997. ' in our view this is not a sufficient/valid ground to increase the cost arbitrarily. There ought to be some ground for escalating the price. Learned Counsel for PUDA has not been forthcoming on any explanation or justification in support of price escalation if the price escalation was on account of any award on land acquisition as was held in the case of HUDA V/s. Ranjan Dhamina, 1997 AIR(SC) 1732, we shall have no ground to interfere. It is not in dispute that land stood acquired much before the date, nothing has been brought on record to show/justify the ground for the escalation, in the absence of which just because word 'tentative' was indicated in the Brochure of letter, this alone cannot be the ground for land price escalation when no additional burden has come on the Public Authority as a result of any bounden duty. The order of the State Commission to PUDA to charge the original price calls for no interference. "

(3.) While dealing with the controversy of award of interest on the delayed delivery of possession the Hon'ble National Commission further held as under: "as far as delay in handing over the possession is concerned, as per record tentative period of delivery was April, 1997, whereas the possession was given in August, 1998. There is no disputing the fact that house was allotted in March, 1996. Allotment letter says that 'the houses/flats are likely to be completed by April, 1997. This date is however tentative and may change'. Possession, however, was given in August 1998. In view of the above clause, we will not consider it a delay/deficiency in handing over the possession. It has been given within a reasonable period as held by us. Normally a period of two to two and a half years is the period which we grant for completion and handing over possession of the house, which has been done in this case, hence grant of interest for delayed possession by both the lower Forums is set aside. "