Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD—Appellant/O.P.
versus
S.S. JAIN—Respondent/Complainant
Appeals No. 371 of 1991 & 8 of 1992—Decided on 7.7.1992
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - CONSUMER DISPUTE - ALLOTMENT OF FLAT - TRANSFER OF FLAT - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - RELIEF UNDER SECTION 14(1) OF THE ACT - CONSUMER FORUM'S JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(1)(D), 2(1)(G), 14(1) OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a flat by an exchange deed from the original allottee, Shri Fateh Singh Charan, who had been allotted the flat by the Rajasthan Housing Board (the Board). The complainant applied for transfer of the flat in his name, but the Board declined to transfer the flat. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking various reliefs, including a direction to the Board to transfer the flat in his favor, compensation for loss of rent and looking after the flat, and damages for engaging a lawyer.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) vis-a-vis the Board, and that there was no consumer dispute involved as envisaged by Section 2(10)(e) of the Act. The Commission further held that the reliefs claimed by the complainant in the complaint could not be granted under Section 14(1) of the Act, as they were beyond the scope of the reliefs enumerated in that provision. Accordingly, the Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act vis-a-vis the Board, and whether there was a consumer dispute involved as envisaged by Section 2(10)(e) of the Act? 2. Whether the reliefs claimed by the complainant in the complaint could be granted under Section 14(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission held that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act vis-a-vis the Board, as he had not hired the services of the Board regarding the allotment of the flat. The original allottee, Shri Fateh Singh Charan, was the only person who could raise a grievance regarding any deficiency in service with respect to the allotment of the flat. 2. The Commission held that the reliefs claimed by the complainant in the complaint could not be granted under Section 14(1) of the Act, as they were beyond the scope of the reliefs enumerated in that provision. The Commission noted that the reliefs which the District Forum had granted were beyond Section 14(1) of the Act which it cannot grant.
Final Decision: The National Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Board and set aside the order of the District Forum. The complaint was dismissed.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—These are two connected appeals arising out of the order dated 20.8.91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 243/91. They were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order. Facts leading to these appeals may briefly be noticed :
2. Flat No. 11/569, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur was originally allotted to Shri Fateh Singh Charan by the Rajasthan Housing Board (“the Board” hereinafter). The complainant is said to have purchased the above flat by a deed of exchange and according to the conditions of the Board, the complainant initiated proceedings and got his name registered under the S.F.S. Scheme. After taking necessary proceedings, the complainant submitted an application for transfer. But the Board declined to transfer and the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. The complainant prayed for the following reliefs : —
(1) that a direction may be issued to the Board to transfer the flat in favour of the complainant before 31.3.91 within 7 days so that the registration may be effected on the original cost and he may not be required unnecessarily to pay after 31.3.91 registration fee on the market value.
(2) that a sum of Rs. 16,000/- at the rate of Rs. 2000/- p.m. for 8 months may be awarded for the loss of rent suffered by the complainant.
(3) that a sum of Rs. 4,800/-at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. for 8 months for looking after the flat may be awarded.
(4) that a sum of Rs.50,000/- may be awarded as compensation.
(5) that a sum of Rs. 376/- may be allowed on account of the payment of water and electricity charges.
(6) that a sum of Rs. 2,200/- may also be awarded on account of damages and costs for engaging a lawyer etc.
Thus in all the complainant claimed Rs. 73,376/- from the Board.
3. The opposite parties filed the version of the case traversing the allegations made in the complaint. Four preliminary objections were raised in the version of the case on behalf of the opposite parties which are as under : —
(1) that there is no consumer dispute is involved between the complainant and the opposite parties as envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein).
(2) that the reliefs which the complainant has sought in the complaint are not covered by Sec. 14(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d) and as such cannot be granted.
(3) that by resolution No. 154/18 which was passed in a meeting of the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government and Managing Committee of the Board, the transfer of the allotted house was discontinued before registering it in the name of the applicant. In other words that the registration will be effected of the allotted house in favour of the original allottee and he can thereafter transfer it.
(4) that the original allottee, Shri Fateh Singh Charan has not been impleaded as a party and in his absence the complaint is not maintainable.
4. Regarding merits of the complaint it was submitted that Shri Fateh Singh Charan got himself registered under the General Registration Scheme 1979 for allotment of a house in Jawahar Nagar Scheme, Jaipur under S.F. Scheme and flat No. 2/259 situate was allotted. Allotment letter No. JPR/DHC-1/734 dated 19.12.85 was issued. The possession was taken by Shri Fateh Singh on 10.6.86. It was denied that it was incumbent on the Board to register under the Kalpataru Scheme. It was submitted that for registration, it is necessary that there should be a registered application even for Kalpataru Scheme. It was submitted that registration will be first effected in the name of original allottee, Shri Fateh Singh Charan. It was pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for by the complainant. In support of the version of the case affidavit of Shri Babu Lai Kumawat, Office Supdt., Registration Department, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur was submitted. The complainant submitted with the complaint an unsworn affidavit. The contents of the affidav
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
