KANHAIYA LAL BIYANI vs RASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

BY this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein), the complainant questions the legality and correctness of the order dt: 5.4.90 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 362/89. Succintly put, facts leading to this appeal are these:

THE complainant applied for the allotment of house to opposite party under 1979 Registration Scheme. He deposited Rs. 3,000/- and got himself registered. His registration No. is HB/1389/Jaipur/MI/79, priority allotted to the complainant was 1087. According to the conditions of registration for allotment of house the complainant was required to deposit Rs. 5,600/- in two instalment. Each instalment being of Rs. 2,800/-. One Shri Dwarka Prasad Bhala also got himself registered and his priority No. was 1608. He was also to deposit Rs. 5,600/- as seed money. THE complainant has alleged that letter dt: 4.5.87 was issued to the said Shri Bhala in which code number mentioned is p-1608/GI/HP/MA/79 and the registration number mentioned is 19933/MIGA. Opposite party NO. 1 sent a letter dt: 4.8.87 to the said Shri Bhala demanding Rs. 5,600/- as seed money, whereas letter dt. 9.6.89 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs. 16,400/-as seed money. THE complainant appellant filed a complaint dt: 31.7.89 under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, Jaipur praying that opposite party-respondent No. 1 may be directed to issue an amended letter to the complainant for Rs. 5,600/- as seed money. THE complainant filed Photostat copies of the letters dt:9.6.89, 4.5.87 and a representation made by him in this regard on 17.6.89. THE opposite party-respondent No. 1 filed the version of the case on 17.10.89. It raised certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. Facts stated by the complainant were admitted. It was further stated that formerly seed money in two instalments of Rs. 2,800/- each was to be deposited but subsequently a decision was taken on 28.2.88 that in respect of the persons who were registered as MIGA seed money should be payable in three instalments: first instalment Rs. 6,000/- second instalment Rs. 6,000/- and third instalment Rs. 4,400/- and in accordance With that letter under challenge was issued to the complainant. THE complainant filed his affidavit dt: 2.3.90. On behalf of opposite party-respondent affidavit of Shri Sukhdev Sharma in support of the version of the case was also filed. Photostat copies of the orders dt: 28.2.88 contained in PARISHISHT 24was filed. Parties did not produce an evidence besides the evidence referred to above. THE District Forum heard the arguments on 24.3.90 and dismissed the complaint. It will be pertinent to quote the following from the impugned order: SUBSID MANI MAKAN KI KIMAT MAI ADJUST HOTA HAI, TO PARIWADI KO KOI NUKSAN NAHI HO RAHA HAI, PARIWAD MAI KOI SAR NAHIN PATE HAI. Hence this appeal against the dismissal of the complaint.

We heard Mr. Kanhaiyalal Biyani appellant in person and Mr. A.L. Tolani Advocate for respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 is merely a pro-forma party.

THE preliminary objections raised by opposite party-respondent No. 1 in the complaint regarding the maintainability of the complaint are devoid of substance for it has authoritatively held by the National Commission that the Housing Board renders service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and the complaint under Section 12 of the Act is maintainable if the service so render suffers from deficiency envisaged by Section 2(1)(g) It was contended by the appellant that in this case service rendered by the opposite party-respondent No.1 is deficient which is apparent from the two letters issued to the complainant and Shri Bhala. The complainant as well as Shri Bhala applied for the allotment of the house. The priority number of the complainant is 1087 and registration number is 16305 MIGA. Priority number allotted to Shri Bhala was P/1608-GI/HP/MP/29 and his registration number is 19933. It is strange that though the complainant got himself registered prior to Shri Bhala and his priority No. is 1087 still on 4.8.87 opposite party-respondent No. 1 issued a letter to a person whose registration No. was 19933 and priority number is P-1608. He was asked to deposit Rs. 5,600/- as seed money and the complainant whose registration number as stated above was 16305 and priority number 1087, letter dt: 9.6.89 subsequent to the letter of Shri Bhala was issued demanding Rs. 16,400 as seed money. The complainant as well as Shri Bhala belong to the same category. One fails to understand as to why the opposite party-respondent No. 1 treated them differently and gave preference by issuing letter dt: 4.8.87 to Shri Bhala and subsequently issued letter dt: 9.6.89 to the complainant Rs. 16,400/- was demanded as seed money. The reason given by the from the complainant Rs. 16,400/- was demanded as seed money. The reason given by the opposite party-respondent No. 1 in reply to para 3 of the complaint even if holds goods, then opposite party should have demanded Rs. 16,400/- from Shri Bhala as his registration number as well as priority number are after the complainant. The complainant on account of his registration number and his priority number should have been asked to deposit Rs. 5,600/- as seed money instead of Rs. 16,400/-. The District Forum has mentioned in the impugned order that as seed money is to be adjusted, the complainant will not suffer any loss. It has failed to take note of the fact that if the complainant is required to deposit in two instalment of Rs. 2,800/- each, his financial liability would be less than would be deposited Rs. 16,400/- in three instalments Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 4,400/- The complainant is bound to suffer loss if he pays the amount of Rs. 16,400/- in three instalment. The question before the District Forum to which it should have directed its attention was whether by issuing letter dt: 9.6.89 for depositing Rs. 16,400/-as seed money to the complainant. It is rendering proper service to the complainant or it suffered from any fault or short coming as contemplated by Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The District Forum utterly failed to take note of it.

HAVING considered the complaint, the version of the case and the documents filed by the parties. We are of considered opinion that by issuing letter dt: 9.6.89 to the complainant demanding Rs. 16,400/- from him as seed money whereas on 4.8.87 by issuing a letter to Shri Bhala it had demanded Rs. 5,600/- only it is rendering deficient service, though the complainant has priority over Shri Bhala in respect of the allotment of the house. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint on the ground which it did, cannot be upheld and it has to be set aside. Opposite party-respondent No. 1 is directed to amend the letter dt: 9.6.89 whereby demanding Rs. 5,600/- as seed money in two instalments from the complainant. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order dt: 5.4.90 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 362/89 is set aside and the opposite party-respondent No. 1 is directed to demand Rs. 5,600/- from the complainant as seed money payable in two instalments. Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.