AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BY means of this complaint, the complainant had prayed for damages of Rs. 26,000/- on account of negligence of the opposite parties.
THE facts of the case stated in brief are that in the year 1987 the opposite parties advertised for self-financing scheme and invited applications. THE complainant under self financing scheme applied for a semi-finished house after depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. A reservation letter was also issued by the opposite parties. THE area as well as the price of the house were given in the brochure. By letter dated 6.12.1990 it was informed to the complainant that the value of the house alloted to the complainant is worth Rs. 1,98,500/-. It was also indicated that the actual cost will be informed later on after completion of the building: THE schedule of payment was also given to the complainant. According to this the complainant has paid the amount to the opposite party No. 2, Estate Officer of Avas Vikas Parishad. Even after payment of the entire amount demanded by the opposite parties, the possession of the house has not been delivered so far till the filing of the complaint in the year 1992. The complainant is entitled to damages on account of this delay. The possession was to be delivered within two years, i.e. upto 31.3.1988, but it was indicated that on account of unavoidable circumstances if the possession has not been delivered, then the Housing Board may not be responsible for the same. The possession of the house has not been delivered so far even after several attempts being made by the complainant. The complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month be given to him as rent which the complainant is paying for a rented house. The total claim is Re, 26,000/-.
The opposite party has filed a written version alleging therein that the time for handing over possession which was indicated in the brochure was merely tentative. The amount was deposited in May, 1987 in Jigar Colony. The reservation letter was issued in the year 1990. The Jigar Colony was a self-financing scheme and related to 1987 scheme. Thereafter on a written consent of the complainant this reservation was transferred to Majhola scheme in the year 1990. The price structure was also likely to change. For deposit of amount in 1990 scheme several demand letters were sent by registered post, but the complainant did not deposit the amount. The complainant had been informed to execute the documents so that the registration may be got done. The allotment was done within two years of deposit of the entire amount.
THE parties filed documents in respect of their respective contentions and we have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed before us the judgment of Complaint Case No. 444/SC/1992, Vishnu Narain Khanna v. Avas Commissioner &''Ors. According to learned Counsel that case was also of the same nature in which a sum of Rs. 26,000/- was claimed as rent. According to learned Counsel that complaint case was dismissed. We have gone through the documents filed by the parties. In spite of giving opportunities to the complainant to file replication, no replication was filed. The complainant has also not filed any affidavit or any other documents in support of his contention. It has been clearly mentioned by the opposite party that the registration of the house has been changed to Majhola scheme with the consent of the complainant. The possession of the house, it appears, has been given to the complainant as the complainant has claimed only Rs. 26,000/-. If the complainant had any other grievance about the deficiency in service, the same could have been looked into, but on the facts of the case and on the pleading of the Counsel, there does not appear to be any deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint dismissed.