ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These two revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the State Commission in two appeals filed by both the petitioners, arising from a single order passed by the District Forum where the complainant, Ms. Shabnam Virk had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority and anr.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a house on 27.3.1996 whose tentative cost was given out as Rs. 6.3 lakhs and tentative time for handing over the possession was given out as April, 1997. Possession of the house was offered and given in August, 1998 and the cost of the house was given as Rs. 7.44 lakhs. In these circumstances alleging deficiency on the part of PUDA, a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties decided not to interfere with the ‘pricing’ of the house being outside the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, but held PUDA deficient in regard to delayed delivery of possession for which interest @ 12% p.a. was awarded for the deposited amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- for a period of one year and four months and cost of Rs. 1,100/-.
3. Aggrieved by this order both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, while the appeal filed by PUDA was dismissed, appeal filed by the complainant was allowed directing PUDA to charge only the original price of Rs. 6.3 lakhs as also maintaining the order of the District Forum of grant of reliefs to the complainant — hence these two revision petitions before this Commission by both the parties.
4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. Two points arise for our consideration, one issue of price and secondly on the point of delayed delivery of possession.
5. As far as the question of pricing is concerned, normally Consumer Forum does 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. Reason for this is given out land rate of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yd. at the time of Advt. in August, 1995 was revised by Finance Committee to Rs. 2,700/- per sq. yd. vide Agenda No. 1408 on 30.6.1997.
6. 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. Ranjan Dhamina, AIR 1997 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 or 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:
7. 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.
Both the appeals are allowed, only in above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.