RAJENDRA KUMAR-/ vs JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I dated 15.9.2001 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

FACTS relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the appellant applied to the respondent (JDA) for allotment of a residential plot measuring 162 sq. mtrs. under the Kardhani Scheme (II Phase) located at Saligrampura, Jaipur by depositing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 31.12.1996. On a draw of lot by the respondent, the appellant was allotted residential plot No. A-200 in the aforesaid scheme and was accordingly required to pay a total amount of Rs. 74,639/- in four instalments. The appellant, it is alleged, deposited the aforesaid instalments by February, 1998 whereupon the respondent issued a allotment letter in favour of the appellant on 13.4.1999. It is the grievance of the appellant that after allotment of the said plot when he visited the site he found that as per notification published by the respondent no basic facilities and amenities such as garden, drinking water, distribution of electricity, laying down of sewerage, shops, school and hospital, etc. were provided on the site. Finding that the respondent has failed to provide the basic facilities and amenities, he demanded his deposited money back with interest @ 18% p.a. vide his communication dated 27.6.1998 and 2.3.1999. The respondent instead of making available the basic facilities as notified by it; demanded that the appellant should pay the lease money, etc. vide its communication dated 13.4.1999. When the appellant wrote again to get his deposited money back vide his communication dated 4.10.1999, the respondent threatened to refund the deposited amount to him after making a deduction 5% from the total amount vide its communication dated 15.1.2000 and 26.2.2000. When the appellant wrote again to get his money back without making any deduction from the deposited money, the respondent vide its communication dated 22.4.2000 again insisted that from the deposited amount, 5% amount has to be deducted since he has failed to obtain the possession of the allotted plot of land. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the learned District Forum.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent by filing a written version. The stand of the respondent has been that delay in delivery of the possession has been only due to non-payment of lease money etc. by the appellant and hence the respondent had a right to deduct 5% amount from the total money deposited by the appellant in respect of the plot in question.

THE District Forum relied upon the version given by the Dy. Commissioner, Zone-D of the respondent and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the respondent in the matter. We heard the appellant in person and perused the material made available on the record carefully; as the respondent did not appear.

TO us, it appears that the learned District Forum has given weightage to the version given by the Dy. Commissioner, Zone-D of respondent and filed before the District Forum first time on 1.6.2001. It is also stated in the reply that in the implementation of a big schemes floated by the local bodies, all the facilities cannot be made available in one day and that it is impracticable. We are afraid that the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the grievance of the appellant. The appellant finding that no basic facilities as notified and published by them in the aforesaid scheme were available when he visited his allotted plot after receipt of a letter of allotment on 2.4.1997 and thereafter also nothing material was done in providing the facilities and amenities as promulgated by it till it threatened to deduct 5% amount from the deposited money of the appellant has to approach the District Forum. To us, it exhibits that the respondent has rendered deficient services to the appellant more to when even after the appellant deposited the total amount of the plot of land in February, 1998; basic facilities and amenities were not provided. It appears that whatever little development as has been mentioned in the reply given by the respondent has been done around 15th of June, 2001 when the reply was filed by the Dy. Commissioner, Zone-D of Respondent. If the respondent was of the view that the delay if any in obtaining the possession of the allotted plot of land has been by the appellant, they could have straightaway deducting 5% amount from his deposited money and sent the payment to the appellant through Demand Draft or Cheque, etc. Instead the respondent insisted that there has been no deficiency on their part in providing basic facilities and amenities under the Scheme and that the appellant himself is responsible for the delay in taking the possession thereof. This approach of the respondent exhibits a lack of desire in providing the basic facilities and amenities by which consumers like the appellant were attracted to apply for. It may also be observed that when the appellant had written to the respondent to refund the deposited amount as early as on 27.6.1998 and thereafter on 2.3.1999 the insistence of the respondent to demand lease money in respect of allotted plot of land was uncalled for. In other words, it has been the instance and arbitrariness on the part of the respondent; in not refunding the amount in spite of the fact that the appellant has demanded it as early as on 22.6.1998; knowing that the respondent has not made any basic facilities and amenities promulgated under the Scheme where the plot in question was allotted to the appellant; that resulted in rendering deficiency in service to the appellant. In view of above, we are of the firm opinion that there has been a deficiency in rendering service to the appellant till the year 2001; when in fact the plot of land was allotted to the appellant as early as and in the year of 1997 he had paid the total cost of the plot by February, 1998. Consequently, while allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned order, it is directed that the respondent shall refund to appellant the total amount deposited by him without making any deductions whatsoever with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 till payment within a period of two months failing which the aforesaid amount would carry interest @ 15% p.a. from the date mentioned above. The respondent shall further pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the appellant. Appeal allowed.