CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR PUDA AND ANOTHER versus MRS. SHABNAM VIRK

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 23-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR PUDA AND ANOTHER 
A 
V. 
MRS. SHABNAM VIRK 
MARCH 23, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Housing Scheme-Demand of increased 
cost of flat-Advertisement inviting applications indicating tentative cost of 
flat and that it was to be revisetf..-:AJ/otment letter demanding increased cost C 
of flat-Affidavit of allottee accepting the allotment and undertaking to abide 
by terms and conditions of the allotment letter-Allqttee, if liable to pay ·, 
increased price stipulated in the letter-Held: Yes, si1Jce allottee had filed an 
affidavit undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions of the letter-
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. 
Appellant-State Development Authority invited applications for 
allotment of Oats fixing its costs at Rs. 6.3 lacs under the Scheme. The 
price quoted was tentative, based on present cost of construction and was 
likely to be revised on higher side on completion of houses. Respondent 
D 
and others applied for the flat undertaking to abide by the terms of the 
Scheme. On completion of flats, draw was held for allotment of specific E 
flat and allotment letters were issued indicating the base price of the flat 
as Rs. 7.67 lacs. Respondent flied an affidavit undertaking to abide by the 
terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Respondent deposited 25% 
of the price stipulated and took possession of flat. Thereafter, he filed a 
complaint that he was not liable to pay any aiMunt over and above the F 
price advertised. District Forum held that there was a clear condition in 
the advertisement that the price quoted was purely tentative and it was 
likely to be revised on the higher side on completion of flats. However, it 
directed the appellants to pay 12% interest on account of delay in handing 
over the possession. State Commission directed the appellant to charge 
only the price which was advertised while inviting the application and to G · 
pay 12% interest. National Commission held that there was no delay by 
the appellant in handing over the possession. However, only the price 
advertised while inviting application for allotment could be charged. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
221 
H 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l 2006 j 3 S. C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Respondent herself had accepted in the undertaking filed 
that she accepted the allotment of the house and undertook to abide by 
all the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the amount indicated 
in the allotment letter was the revised amount on the higher side in respect 
B of the allotment of the house. That being so the respondent was liable to 
pay the amount as stipulated in the allotment letter. Nothing is found in 
the quoted clause to show that the increase was possible only when there 
was an increase in the cost of construction. The clause quoted does not 
reflect any such intention of the parties. (226-B-DJ 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3967-3968 
of 2004. 
From the Final Order dated 26.8.2003 of the National Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1206-1207 of 
D 2002 and Order dated 17.3.2004 in Review Petition No. 31/2004. 
Altaf Ahmed, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Jssar for the Appellants. 
Manoj Swarup. Neeraj Sharma, Naresh Kaushal, Dinesh Verma, Ms. 
Suresh Kumari, A.P. Mohanty, G.K. Bansal (N.P.), R.K. Talwar. S.S. Virk, 
E Amit Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed 
by the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the 
F 'Commission'). The Commission held that as delay in handing over the 
possession was clearly established and the reasons in price escalation of the 
house was not proved or established, the respondent was entitled to get the 
house at Rs.6.3 lacs instead of Rs.7.44 lacs as demanded by the appellants. 
Background facts in a nutshell, as projected by the appellants are as 
G follows: 
On 15.8.1995 the appellants floated a scheme for allotment of784 four 
story MIG (SUPER) flats on hire purchase basis at SAS Nagar,(Mohali). The 
scheme opened on 15.8.1995 and was to close on 14.9.1995. As per the 
advertisement inviting applications for allotment under the said scheme, the 
H tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.6.3 lacs. However, condition (2) 
-
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR PUDA v. SHABNAM VIRK
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.