Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal against the order of the National Consumer Redressal Commission regarding the price of MIG (Super) flats allotted to the respondent. The appellants, Chief Administrator PUDA and another, floated a scheme for allotment of flats in 1995, with a tentative price of Rs.6.3 lacs. The respondent applied for a flat and accepted the terms of the allotment, which later indicated a revised price of Rs.7.44 lacs. The respondent filed a complaint claiming she should only pay the initially advertised price, leading to a series of decisions by the District Forum and State Commission, which favored her. The National Commission, however, ruled that the appellants could only charge the advertised price. The appellants contended that the price was tentative and subject to change based on construction costs, while the respondent argued that price changes were only permissible with actual cost increases. The court analyzed the terms of the allotment and the affidavits submitted by the respondent, concluding that the respondent was bound by the revised price stated in the allotment letter. The court found the National Commission's ruling to be in error and allowed the appeal, reinstating the revised price as the amount due. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Tentative Pricing - Liability for Payment - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) - The court held that the price quoted in the allotment letter was binding and the respondent was liable to pay the amount as stipulated in the allotment letter, rejecting the claim for the earlier advertised price. The National Commission's order was found erroneous as it did not appreciate the terms of the allotment correctly (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was liable to pay the revised price for the flat as per the allotment letter or the earlier advertised price.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the revised price of Rs.7.44 lacs as the amount due from the respondent, finding the National Commission's order erroneous.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection
- Tentative Pricing
- Allotment Conditions
- Delay in Possession
- Liability for Payment
