RAMESH CHAND DUBE vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD THROUGH CHAIRMAN

THIS complaint has been filed by Dr. Ramesh Chand Dube against the Rajasthan Housing Board and its Dy. Commissioner claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 1,53,850/- and a further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for continuous inconvenience which has been caused to the complainant.

ACCORDING to the averments made by the complainant, he had got himself registered for a house in H.I.G. category with the Rajasthan Housing Board in the year 1978. The Housing Board drawn a lottery among the registered applicants for allotment of house in Vallabh Bari, Kota, and in the lottery drawn, house No. C-8 was allotted to the complainant. In this very lottery, two other houses bearing Nos. C-7 and C-9 were also allotted. It has been alleged that after the drawal of the lottery the complainant had been making efforts for possession of the house allotted to him but the Opposite Parties were avoided delivering possession of the house. It has been stated that main reason for not delivering possession of the house allotted to the complainant was that office of the Dy. Housing Commissioner, Kota Circle was running in this house from the years 1983 to 1989. The complainant has further alleged that in Vallabh Bari Housing Scheme at Kota, possession of house No. C-9, which was allotted as a result of the same lottery, was delivered by the Housing Board in the month of April, 1984, and the other house bearing No. C-7, was given to the allottee concerned in January'' 90. However so far as the complainant was concerned, possession of the house was delivered to him in October, 1990. At the time of the delivery of the possession of the house the housing board mentioned the price of the house as Rs. 3,33,850/-. It has further been pleaded that so far as housing No. C-7 was concerned, it has been allotted to a senior officer of the Indian Administrative Service and that possession was delivered to him in the year 1984 and he was charged only an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. For the other house bearing No. C-9, of which possession had been delivered in January, 90, the Housing Board had charged Rs. 2,10,000/-. But from the complainant the cost of the house was being charged to the extent of Rs. 3,33,850/- and this amount is being realised by instalments of Rs. 4,000/-. The Complainant had to take possession under protest. The demand of Rs. 3,33,850/- is said to be arbitrary. The complainant stated that he is being compelled to pay the balance amount by instalments. He has prayed that the excess amount of Rs. 1,53,850/- which is being charged from him, may be allowed to him as compensation and further an amount of Rs. 50,000/-be awarded as compensation for the inconvenience which is being caused to the complainant. Upon a reference being made to the opposite parties, they filed their version before this State Commission on 12.5.92. It has been admitted by the Opposite Parties that the complainant had got himself registration for a H.I.G. category house in the year 1978 and that in the draw of lottery made in the year 1983 for Vallabh Bari Scheme, Kota, house No. C-8 was allotted to the complainant and during the same lottery houses Nos. C-7 and C-9 were allotted. As regards the allegations of the complainant that the office of the Dy. Housing Commissioner, Kota Circle was being run in house No. C-8 which had been allotted to the complainant, it has been stated by the Opposite Parties that as the Housing Board constructs so many houses, they remain available with it and on account of the fact that some office of the Housing Board is run in any of such houses, the construction activities are not delayed. Office is run at the site because construction activities go on there. However there does not remain any deficiency of houses with the Housing Board for making alternative arrangements for the houses. The Housing Board compares itself to the running river and asserts that no one remains thirsty who resides near the river of the Rajasthan Housing Board. They denied that the office of the Board was continuously being run in house No. C-8 from 1983 to 1989. It has been asserted that in 1983 this house was not even constructed. The Opposite Parties have stated that the houses are constructed at different times and difference in the cost price is natural on account of escalation in the price. The cost price determined by the Housing Board on Nationalised principles. It is denied that the possession of the house has been obtained by the complainant under protest.

It may be mentioned that the Counsel for the complainant had appeared on 24.4.1993 and he has sought adjournment. The case was adjourned to 25.8.1993. But the complainant or his Counsel did not appear on that day. Thereafter on 4.12.1993, the case was adjourned for today. On that day also the Counsel for the complainant was not present. However, someone had noted the date on behalf of the complainant. When the case was taken up today the complainant or his Counsel was not present.

1 HAVE heard the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and HAVE gone through the evidence adduced by the parties by way of affidavits. It is not in dispute that the complainant has got himself registered for a H.I.G. category house in the year 1978 with the Housing Board. It is also not in dispute that the Housing Board, in relation to Vallabh Bari Housing Scheme, Kota had drawn lottery amongst registered applicants and as a result of the draw of the lottery, house No. C-8 came to be allotted to the complainant and during this very lottery other houses Nos. C-7 and C-9 were allotted. It is not disputed that the delivery of possession of the house was given to the complainant in October, 1990 and that cost of the house was worked out at Rs. 3,33,850/-. The Opposite Parties HAVE not denied in their reply that in respect of house No. C-9 on which possession had been delivered in the year 1984, the Housing Board had charged Rs. 1,80,000/- as the costs and in respect of the other house No. C-7 of which possession was delivered in the month of January, 90, had charged Rs. 2,10,000/- from the allottee.

IT is the clear version of the complainant that in house No. C-8 office of Dy. Commissioner, Kota Circle was being run. The Housing Board does not dispute for temporary period they run their various offices in the houses under construction. The Opposite Parties have only vaguely stated that difference in the cost of various houses arises on account of the fact that their construction are completed at different periods and possession of the houses so constructed are also delivered on different dates. There is no categorical assertion that house Nos. C-7, C-8 and C-9 were constructed at the same time. The entire record of constructions remained with the Rajasthan Housing Board. IT is under an obligation to produce before the State Commission its record in order to show that when the construction of a particular house started and when it was completed. Construction of houses by the Rajasthan Housing Board is made through contractors by issuing tenders. Every progress of the house is recorded and completion certificates are also furnished. Even if the construction of houses are carried on partly, the entire record remains with the Housing Board. If the Housing Board relies upon different period of starting of construction and different dates for their completion, it has to show from documentary record maintained in the Housing Board that the house in question was started late and was completed later than others. Withholding of such important documents must raise adverse influence against the Housing Board. Otherwise also it is not proper that adjoining of the houses in the same locality are constructed on various dates. The Housing Board does not construct one by one house and more so when the other houses allotted by it are just on both sides of the houses. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the possession letter was not issued to the complainant because in house No. C-8, some office of the Rajas than Housing Board was running. I am of the view that the house in question had been constructed alongwith other houses bearing Nos. C-7 and C-9. For Officer of the I.A.S., the Rajasthan Housing Board showed undue preference by delivering possession to the concerned allottee in the year 1984 as an I.A.S. officer #was a favoured child of the Housing Board. IT is, however, clear that to other allottee the possession of the house was delivered in the year 1990 and that allottee was charged Rs. 2,10,000/-. Clearly the complainant cannot be charged more than the other allottee from whom the Housing Board charged Rs. 2,10,000/-. The delay in delivering of the house to the complainant was due to inefficiency in and deficiency of service on the part of the Housing Board. The complainant, who was a needy for housing accommodation, had no option but to succumb to the arbitrariness of the opposite parties. He is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,53,850/- which he had paid in excess. No other compensation need be awarded to the complainant. The Housing Board was only to recover Rs. 2,10,000/- from the complainant. The Housing Board will be entitled to adjust its instalments which have become due since January, 1990 from the amount of compensation awarded to the complainant. The Rajasthan Housing Board will pay the compensation amount to the complainant within two months. Complaint allowed.