M P HOUSING BOARD vs Vishambharnath Malik

HEARD . By the order impugned the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhabua has directed appellant -opposite party, the M.P. Housing Board to construct a HIG house in a particular locality at Jhabua and make the same available to the respondent -complainant or in alternative allot one of the other three houses carrying numbers M/25, M/112 and M/115 presently used and occupied by the officers of the appellant -board. A further sum of Rs. 5,000 has been awarded as compensation, besides cost Rs. 500.

THE respondent -complainant had booked a HIG house with the appellant -Board on 14.9.1999 and deposited Rs. 55,000. It is more or less admitted that the land on which the houses were proposed to be constructed went into litigation and the scheme did not materialize. The appellant -Board, therefore, on 16.8.2001 refunded the aforesaid amount to respondent -complainant through an account payee cheque. A further sum of Rs. 9,632 by way of interest was also remitted to the respondent through account payee cheque on 22.1.2002. However the respondent did not accept any of these cheques and insisted for allotment of some alternative house. He approached the Forum below attributing deficiency on the part of the appellant -Board. The complaint was resisted by the appellant and it was explained that due to non -availability of the land the houses could not be constructed. We have perused the entire evidentiary material on record. As already pointed out it is an admitted fact that the land on which the houses were to be constructed by the appellant -Board was involved in some litigation and no house could, therefore, be constructed by the appellant -Board for allotment to the respondent. Under the circumstance, no deficiency could be attributed to the appellant -Board and no order forcing the appellant -Board to construct a house and allot the same to the respondent could legally be passed. The Board could only be directed to refund the amount deposited by the respondent with interest. In fact, the appellant -Board did remit the same amount with interest to the respondent and which, in our opinion, was sufficient to discharge the obligation on the part of the appellant -Board.

THERE is evidence on record to show that some other scheme was undertaken by the appellant -Board for construction of MIG houses and an intimation was also sent to the respondent requiring him to register himself for allotment of a house in the said scheme. Interestingly the respondent instead of making any application for himself made his son and daughter to apply for a house which they did apply and got a house from the appellant -Board. This was again indicative of bona fides on the part of the appellant -Board. However the respondent taking advantage of his own deposit insisted for allotment of HIG house and even went on to ask for allotment of one of the houses which are presently occupied by the officers of the appellant -Board.

HAVING considered the entire factual matrix of the case we are of the considered view that order for refund of the said amount of Rs. 55,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., 14.9.1999 will meet the ends of justice. We accordingly dispose of this appeal with the under noted directions: (1) The directions for construction and allotment of house made by the Forum below is set -aside. (2) The appellant -Board shall refund to the respondent the said sum of Rs. 55,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.9.1999 till payment. (3) Parties shall bear their own costs as incurred of both the Fora.

Appeal disposed of.