CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD vs RAJ KUMAR BAJAJ

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 10th July, 1991 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT. Chandigarh in complaint case No. 50/ 90. That complaint was filed by the present Respondent Mr. Raj Kumar Bajaj against the present Appellant- Chandigarh Housing Board (for short the Board), By the impugned order the State Commission accepted the complaint and directed the Board to allot Category-II house of revised design constructed by it in Sector 45A Chandigarh or in a contiguous sector which is available or will become available. Allotment was ordered to be made within a period of three months from the date of the order. The order was qualified with a direction that the allotment will be subject to adjustment of the amount already deposited by the Complainant for the allotment of the flat iii his favour earlier in Sector 47.

THE facts as gathered from the documents placed on the file are that in 1987 the Board issued a brochure in respect of a housing scheme for general public. Under that scheme 1100 flats were offered in the following categories in two sectors: It was made clear in the brochure that the terms and conditions contained in it will be followed in general but the Board reserved a right to alter any one of them as and when considered necessary and draw/amend the scheme as its discretion. However, the Chandigarh Administration which allots land to the Board at the reserved price, allotted the land for the construction of those flats in Sectors 45 and 47. Accordingly the draw of plots for the registration and allocation of flats was held on 28th February, 1988. The Complainant was successful for the allotment of a flat on the first floor in Sector 47. The Complainant accepted the same and started making payment as per schedule. In 1989 the Board decided to construct 264 flats on revised design (with more plinth area i.e. 1228 Sq. ft) in Sector 45A. As appears from the letter at page 49 of the paper book, a letter was written to the complainant Similar letters are said to have been sent to other allottees. The following portions of that letter are relevant for the purpose of this order:

"Please refer to this office letter No. 3628 dated 21.4.88 whereby allocation of floor and schedule of payment for Category-II flats in Sector 47 was intimated to you. As per original scheme advertised by the Board, plint area of 1000 Sq. ft. was to be provided with tentative saleable cost of Rs. 1.67 lacs.

It has been the constant endeavour of the Board to improve the design, providing better accommodation and more facilities. Keeping these objectives in view, it was decided by the Board to provide the following additional facilities for revised design of category-II in 264 flats as per revised design in Sector 45-A in addition to what has been mentioned in the brochure/advertisement.

You are now requested to convey your option as to whether you opt for the existing design of flats or new design of flat and revised cost. Your option should reach this Board within twenty days of the issue of this letter positively. The payment of the instalment due should also be amde by Bank Draft drawn on any scheduled bank in favour of Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh at Chandigarh. It is, however, made clear that in case the number of applicants who opt for the revised design are more than the number of units being constructed, a draw would be held amongst them without disturbing the floors already allocated and those who are not successful in the draw would be allotted the flats of the existing design.

The Complainant gave his option for the revised design of flats to be constructed in Sector 45-A with a plinth area of 1228 Sq. ft. It appears that the flats of original design were also sought to be constructed in Sector 38. The total number of flats thus to be constructed in Sectors 38,45-A and 47 were 1750 of Category-I, II and III. It further appears that most of the applicants who had been registered for flats in those three sectors opted for the new design of houses. Thus the Board appeared to be in a quandary that how to resolve the problem caused by giving the option to various registrants of flats. The Board obtained opinion of the Advocate General of Punjab. The relevant portion of the opinion is as follows: The flats in question were allotted by joint draw of lots in Sectors 38, 45 and 47. The amendment in the scheme has been made only in Sector 45 and 264 flats have been built on the new design. I am told that if only the applicants from Sector 45 are to be considered for allotment of the revised design flats, then they can all be accommodated. If, however, the matter is thrown open to all the original applicants in the three sectors, the aforementioned revised designed flats cannot be allotted to all such applicants. The Brochure advertising the scheme provided as under:

(ii) The above terms and conditions will be followed in general but Chandigarh Housing Board reserves the right to alter any of these as and when considered necessary. (v) The Board reserves the right to withdraw/ amend the scheme at its discretion. It can therefore be presumed that as the allotment has been made by way of draw of lots, all the applicants had an even chance of being allotted flats in any of the three Sectors. The Board has thought it fit to amend the scheme only in Sector 45 and as such it would be proper that the choice for the newly designed flats should be in the first instance be confined only to the allottees of Sector 45 flats.

It was further suggested by the Advocate General that the surplus flats left over after accommodating all the applicants of Sector 45 be thrown open to the applicants from Sector 38 and 47.

AS noticed earlier the first draw was held on 20.2.1988 and it was for the registration and allocation of floors. The Complainant was successful for a flat on the first floor in Sector 47, in respect of Category-II. As noticed earlier, the Complainant had accepted the said allotment and started making payments as per schedules.

THE next draw as hold on 26th May, 1990 in respect of allotment of flats to the various allottees. It appears that the separate draws were held in respect of three different sectors mentioned above. The Complainant''s name was not included in the list of drawees in respect of revised design of the houses constructed in Sector 45-A. As appears from the paper book and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant draws in respect of revised design of houses were confined to the persons who were registered for allotment in Sector 45 in accordance with the advice of the Advocate General. In the draw held on that date in respect of Sector 47 the Complainant was allotted flat No. 2064/1. As the Complainant''s name was not considered in the draw held in respect of the revised design of flats constructed in Sector 45-A he filed a complaint before the State Commission. It has already been stated that the State Commission allowed that complaint. Feeling aggrieved by that order the Board has filed this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. We are of the opinion that the complainant has no case. The State Commission has remarked that the Board cannot get out of its own act of having called upon the allottees of flats in Sector 38 and 47 to exercise their option for allotment of a flat of Category-II as per revised design which were being constructed in Sector 45-A. We fail to see how any vested right was created in the complainant merely because Board had asked for an option of the allottees of flats in Sector 38 and 47 for allotment of a flat of revised design. The Complainant had been registered for Sector 47 for a flat on the first floor and he had accepted the allotment and started making payments according to the schedule. If the Board decided to give a chance to such allottees of Sector 38 and 47 to give an option for the revised design of flats in Sector 45 it cannot be said that the Complainant had hired services of the Board for consideration. It was a gratutious offer by the Board which it subsequently withdrew for good reasons without affecting the right of the Complainant to the initial allotment.

IT is further to be noted that only 264 flats of the revised designs were to be constructed while the registration was in respect of 1750 flats of Categories I, Hand III in different Sectors of Chandigarh. All the allottees of flats of Category II who were registered for allotment in Sectors 38, 45-A and 47 could not have been accommodated for allotment for the revised design of flats and that was the reason why the Board was compelled to seek opinion of the Advocate General. The Complainant has nowhere pleaded in his complaint that he has been discriminated against and persons similarly situated like him in Sectors 38 and 47 were considered for allotment of revised designs of flats.

FROM whatever angle the case is viewed we are of the opinion that the Complainant cannot be said to be a consumer who hired the services of the Board for allotment of revised designs of flats in Sector 45-A. Consequently we accept the present appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. The appellant will be entitled to costs of the present proceedings which we assess at Rs. 3,500/