The Board was not negligent in allotting the house to the complainant and was justified in charging the complainant an increased price. The complainant was not entitled to a house as per the specifications of the scheme.

Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—The complainant Shri Dinesh Chandra Goswami has filed this complaint under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) against the Rajasthan Housing Board (opposite party) on 24.8.90 praying for the reliefs mentioned in para 5 of the complaint. It was alleged by the complainant that in the year 1973 the Board invited applications under the General Registration Scheme July— September, 1973 for registration of the applicants intending to purchase houses built by it. It was stated therein that efforts will be made by the Board to allot houses to the registered applicants within l½ years to 3 years. The complainant submitted application No. 2926 dated 25.9.73 which was registered under certificate No. 24139 dated 5.4.74 for a built house in Jaipur of 30’ X 60’ (200 sqr. yds.) size (comprising of 2 Bedrooms, 1 Drawing Room, Kitchen, Verandah, Bathroom, Stairs and open space). A letter No. 1566 dated 7.11.84 was issued to the complainant by the Board which has been submitted as enclosure ‘C’ In that letter the complainant has stated that : —

(i) It was issued as late as in November 1984 i.e. after more than 11 years of his registration, which, ought to have been issued in October, 76.

(ii) It was for a house only of 8 X 15 meters (145.2 sqr. yds.) size (comprising only of 2 rooms, kitchen, Verandah, Bathroom, no third room, no stairs, open space).

(iii) In it an increased sale price including an extra cost of Rs. 5,800/- was mentioned.

(iv) It was in revision of its earlier wrong letter which was issued without ascertaining from the record that the case was of allotment on outright payment basis and not on hire purchase basis; and

(v) It was for allotment for a sale price of Rs. 37,690/- (i.e. Rs. 8,040/- for plot of land + Rs. 23,850/- for construction + Rs. 5,800/- extra cost) and a few other charges.

2. It was stated by the complainant that the Board notified a scheme i.e. Allotment Scheme, 1975 in which the price of the house of 25’ X 50’ size was shown as Rs. 25,300/- but the price actually charged by the Board from the complainant was Rs. 12,390/- higher than the price shown in the General Registration Scheme, 1973. The scheme did not provide for the varied number of stages for allotment of a house e.g. reservation, assignment of number, allotment and handing over possession etc. as was done later on. The complainant has also stated in the complaint that during the period of the aforesaid express promise, the State Government employees had the facility of getting the ORS price of the houses in lumpsum or at once, but the Board did not perform its promise and so the employees were compelled to get the ORS price in instalments, the minimum period of which comes to 5 years. This enlargement affected the entitlement and claim of the complainant adversely, making him liable to pay interest and penal interest to the Board as well as an increased rate of interest to the State Government. It is said that after 3 years of the period of its aforesaid promise, the Board invited applications for inclusion of names of the registered applicants in Draw 79/80 for lottery No. 1 in May, 1979 for the houses built and being built by it stating in the Scheme that the houses are likely to be constructed and completed within a period of 12 to 15 months. The total approximate price of the house of 8 X 15 meter size was shown as Rs. 27,500/- which was inclusive of the sum of Rs. 6,600/- already charged or being charged by it as registration and seed money. The Board sent letter No. 7052 dated 10.8.79 in regard to the complainant’s success in the Reservation Scheme, 1979-80 Lottery No. 1 mentioning the price of the house reserved for the complainant as Rs. 27,500/-. According to the complainant this shows that the Board has charged a sum of Rs. 10,190/- in excess of the price chargeable by it.

3. The complainant has averred that while issuing a No Objection Certi