Rajasthan Housing Board vs Ramesh Chandra Papdiwal Through Lrs

M. Shreesha, J

Dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 25.07.2012, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jaipur (in short "the State Commission"), Rajasthan Housing Board (in short "the Housing Board") has preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has partially allowed the Appeal No. 930 of 2009 preferred by the Complainant modifying the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Camp Forum, Jaipur (in short "the District Forum), directing the Housing Board to allot the house to the Complainant on the same rate on which the houses were allotted to other applicants registered in 1989 together with compensation of 20,000/- and costs of 5,000/-. The Appeal No. 931 of 2009 preferred by the Housing Board was dismissed.

It is the Complainant's case that he had deposited an amount of 10,000/- on 29.04.1989 for allotment of house in HIG group in Neeti Nagar, under a scheme meant for judicial officers and advocate of the Petitioner Board. On 14.02.1992, the Board requested the Complainant to opt for registration and allotment of a house in General Registration Scheme as they could not procure the land for implementation of Neeti Nagar Scheme.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint directing the Housing Board to allot the house to the Complainant at the then prevailing rate in Sanganer under Self Financing Scheme after fixing seniority of the Complainant, end of 1989 and directed the Complainant to return the cheque of 23,156/- issued by the Board.

Both the parties preferred Appeals before the State Commission. As already stated earlier the State Commission had partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant whereas it had dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Housing Board.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board vehemently contended that the Board issued various letters to the Complainant and gave several opportunities to send alternate options, but there was no response.

It is submitted that the except for application amount, neither reservation (seed money) could be issued in favour of the Complainant due to his failure to furnish the required option. Hence priority could not be fixed through lottery draw and hence the question of giving outright allotment of a house bye-passing all procedural steps, cannot be done. Learned Counsel argued that the last correspondence was made on 02.07.1993, Registration of the Complainant was cancelled vide letter dated 02.07.1993 and after 13 years the Complainant had filed Complaint before the District Forum despite the fact that the registration amount was returned on 29.11.2006 with interest.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board vehemently argued that the amount was paid in the year 1989 and the House was already allotted to a third party in the year 2013 and therefore the order is not executable. He thus submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is liable to be set aside and the Complaint has to be dismissed.

Mr. Papdiwal argued that the Complainant had offered his option for General Registration Scheme under Self Financing Scheme in Malviya Nagar. While so, in October 1992 the Housing Board issued a letter to the Complainant to get the Registration transferred to Kalpatru Scheme or to get the amount refunded. However, it is the Complainant's case that no information was received by him from the Housing Board. On 13.02.2003, the Complainant deposited the requisite fee to seek redressal before the Conciliation Committee, but despite passage of time as there was no response, the Complainant, on 19.08.2006 withdrew his case from the Conciliation Committee and filed a Complaint before the District Forum. The Fora below have on appriciation of evidence and material on record correctly passed the orders in favour of the Complainant and it requires no interference.

A brief perusal of the grounds shows that no such averment was made either in the grounds of the Revision Petition filed before us nor was any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the particular house was allotted to a third party and no such houses were available, we are of the considered view that this contention of the Revision Petitioner cannot be sustained. Mr. Papdiwal appearing for the Respondents submitted that even recently allotments were made from the same scheme. Be that as it may, in the absence of any pleading in the grounds of Revision Petition regarding the allotment of a house to a third party, or any evidence or material brought on record this plea advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no force and cannot be accepted.

From the evidence and material on record, we find that the District Forum as also the State Commission have correctly come to a conclusion that the letters/ information alleged to have been sent by the Housing board to the Complainant was infact not received by the Complainant and he had no inforamtion about the same and therefore he was entitled for allotment of the house at the same rate on which houses were alloted to the other Applicants registered in 1989. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. Reference is made to the decision of this Commission in Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vijaya Singh Punia (Revision Petition No. 2109 of 2006) dated 09.09.2009, and keeping in view our limited Revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2 (2010) CPJ 19 (SC), this Revision Petition fails and dismissed accordingly. However, no order as to costs.