RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President &
Mrs. Firoza Bano, Member
ROSHAN LAL—Appellant
versus
SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 2576 of 1994—Decided on 28.10.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : None.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate.
A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can be filed after the coming into force of the Act even if the cause of action arose before the Act came into force, provided it is not a stale complaint.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - LIMITATION - STALE COMPLAINT - HOUSING BOARD - PENALTY - NEGLIGENCE - CONSUMER FORUM - JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - ALLOTMENT OF HOUSE - BANK DRAFT - CERTIFICATE - POSTAL RECEIPT - AFFIDAVIT - COUNTER AFFIDAVIT - DELAY IN DELIVERING POSSESSION - MENTAL DISTRESS AND AGONY - REFUND OF PENALTY.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant applied for allotment of a house in Udaipur and deposited the required fees. The Housing Board issued a reservation letter requiring the complainant to deposit two instalments of seed money of Rs. 6,000/- each. The complainant sent a bank draft for the first instalment by registered post, but the Housing Board denied receiving it. The complainant produced a certificate from the bank and a postal receipt, but the Housing Board still refused to accept it. The complainant submitted a duplicate bank draft, and the Housing Board issued an allotment letter, levying a penalty of Rs. 6,600/- for late deposit of the first instalment. The complainant deposited the amount and obtained possession of the house.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. The State Commission held that the complaint was stale and dismissed it on that ground, but also criticized the Housing Board for charging a penalty from the complainant despite his timely submission of the seed money.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the Housing Board was justified in charging a penalty from the complainant despite his timely submission of the seed money?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The complaint was stale as the complainant had obtained possession of the house five years before filing the complaint. 2. The Housing Board was not justified in charging a penalty from the complainant as the negligence in mishandling the bank draft was on the part of the Housing Board.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed as stale, but the State Commission criticized the Housing Board for charging a penalty from the complainant despite his timely submission of the seed money.
Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President—This appeal has been filed by the complainant Roshan Lal against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 17.6.93 dismissing his Complaint Case No. 353/91 on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. Complainant had appeared on 7.6.95 but thereafter he did not appear.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-respondents and have perused the record of the District Forum. Admittedly the complainant had made application for allotment of a house in Udaipur. The application was made on 30.1.80 and the complainant had deposited Rs. 500/- as application fee and thereafter deposited Rs. 4100/-. The office of the Housing Board had registered the complainant. It issued a reservation letter to the complainant on 2.7.83. By this reservation letter the complainant was required to deposit two instalments of seed money of the amount of Rs. 6,000/- each. According to the complainant he sent a bank draft dated 1.8.83 of the UCO Bank, Udaipur to the Housing Board by registered post on 3.8.83 with respect to first instalment of seed money. The second instalment of seed money was deposited by him on 2.1.84. Despite that possession of the house was not delivered to the complainant. The complainant went to the office of the Resident Engineer, Udaipur who told to the complainant that he had not deposited the first instalment of seed money. In order to satisfy the opposite parties, the complainant produced a certificate regarding bank draft from UCO Bank and yet the opposite parties denied having received the amount of seed money. The complainant submitted a duplicate copy of the bank draft dated 28.3.86. After accepting the duplicate copy, the opposite parties issued allotment letter to the complainant wherein an amount of Rs. 6,600/- was levied as penalty on account of late deposit of first instalment of seed money. As the complainant had to obtain the possession of the house, he deposited the amount required in the allotment letter and obtained possession of the house on 9.9.86. Complainant filed a complaint before the Ditsrict Forum claiming compensation of delay in delivering the possession of the house, compensation for mental distress and agony and in addition for the refund of the amount of Rs. 6,600/- charged by the opposite parties as penalty.
3. The opposite parties pleaded that they considered the deposit of the first instalment of seed money of Rs. 6,000/- on the date on which the amount was credited in the account of the Housing Board. It was also pleaded that the complainant had voluntarily deposited the amount asked for in the allotment letter and had obtained possession of the house on 9.9.86. It was stated that allotment letter had not been issued earlier because the complainant had not depos ited the first instalment of seed money. It was also pleaded that the cause of action had accrued prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. It would appear from the above narration that the controversy between the parties was regarding the deposit of the amount of Rs. 6,000/- with respect to the first instalment of seed money by the complainant. The District Forum, Udaipur has accepted the version of the complainant that he had sent a bank draft No. 209663 dated 1.8.83 to the Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur by registered post. The complainant has also produced photo copy of the letter dated 2.8.83 along with the bank draft had been sent. He also produced the postal receipt dated 3.8.83 to show that the bank draft was sent by registered post to the Housing Board. Apart from that the complainant also produced a certificate issued by the Accountant of the UCO Bank, Udaipur Branch certifying that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- in the account of the Rajasthan Housing Board, collection account in the Branch of the Bank at Udaipur by demand draft drawn at Branch Office, Jaipur. It was also certified