S.S.CHADHA - (1.)THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 3rd May, 1995 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad upholding the order dated 14th December, 1993 of Ahmedabad City Consumer Forum in Complaint No. 579/91.
(2.)THE facts are not in dispute. Gujarat Housing Board, petitioner herein, is a statutory body engaged in the construction of the houses and allotment to the intending allottees/purchasers. It proposed a Self Financing Scheme for 290 H.I.G. and 6 shops near Jivraj Mehta Hospital, Vasna, Ahmedabad. The same was published in March, 1989, August, 1989, October, 1989 and February, 1990. This scheme was announced after following the required procedure and approval of the plans and programmes. The original estimated cost of the unit was Rs. 1,80,000/ -. The complainant became a member of the scheme and agreed to purchase a flat as a member. The complainant was to pay the cost of the flat by instalments. By letter dated 12th November, 90, the Gujarat Housing Board intimated to the complainant that the estimated cost of the flat was declared at Rs. 1,80,000/ - but the Board has since revised the cost of the flat as Rs. 1,86,000/ - and the mode of the payment of the revised cost was given in the said letter. The complainant paid the revised cost in instalments and took possession of the flat. He alleged in the complaint that if he had not paid the additional amount of Rs. 6,000/ -, he was not likely to get possession. After making the payment and taking possession, the complainant filed the Complaint No. 579/91 before the District Forum, Ahmedabad City and prayed for the refund of money with compensation. The District Forum held that the Board was not entitled to receive Rs. 6,000/ - and directed the refund of Rs. 6,000/ - together with interest at the rate of 18% from 1.11.91 and also granted Rs. 3,000/ - towards compensation and Rs. 4,000/ - costs. The appeal of the petitioners herein was dismissed by the State Commission with costs.
The impugned orders of the State Commission as well as District Forum suffer from serious irregularities and illegalities in the exercise of jurisdiction. They failed to appreciate that there was no firm commitment of allotting the flat at estimated price of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. The cost announced in the scheme was estimated and it was revised by the petitioners herein. The complainant paid the price of the flat and took possession. This Commission has taken consistent view that under the Consumer Protection Act the pricing policy cannot be challenged after the allottee has taken possession of the house. The question of pricing of the flat by Housing Authority or Board is not a consumer dispute. The pricing is not a matter which can be the subject matter of dispute before the Consumer FORA except where the prices have been fixed by law. The price charged by the petitioners herein is a consideration for the sale or transfer of the flat. The question as to what was the estimated cost and what was the actual cost of the flat is a matter of pricing not amenable to the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.)THE Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission dated 3.5.95 and the District Forum dated 14.12.93 are set aside and the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It will however be open to the complainant to agitate the question of pricing before a Civil Court if he feels that the Board has illegally recovered any excess price of the flat. Revision Petition allowed.