Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President &
Mr. Ratan Prakash, Member
DR. ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA—Appellant
versus
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Nos. 1950 and 2025 of 1998—Decided on 27.3.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Het Ram Agarwal, Advocate.
After taking possession of a house constructed by the Board, the pricing policy, price, and the principle of charging interest cannot be challenged by the allottee.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Housing Allotment Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24-A, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(a), Section 2(1)(p) - The court discussed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its provisions including Section 24-A, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(a), and Section 2(1)(p). The court emphasized that after taking possession of a house constructed by the Board, the pricing policy, price, and the principle of charging interest cannot be challenged by the allottee. The court also highlighted that the only remedy for grievances regarding costing of extra land or interest rates is to seek redress before a competent Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta registered with the Board for house allotment, deposited required amounts, and questioned the pricing and interest rates. After taking possession, he filed a complaint claiming compensation for late delivery, mental agony, and physical discomfort. The Board contested, citing delay in taking possession and the complaint being beyond the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the complaint, awarding compensation and cost to the complainant. On appeal, the court quashed the order, stating that the complainant's grievances regarding pricing and interest rates should be addressed in a competent Civil Court.
Issues: Delay in taking possession, limitation period for filing complaint, pricing and interest rate grievances
Ratio Decidendi: After taking possession, pricing policy and interest rates cannot be challenged. Complaint filed beyond the limitation period is not valid under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the complainant was not allowed, while the appeal filed by the Board was allowed. The complainant was advised to seek redress for grievances before a competent Civil Court.
Mr. Ratan Praksash, Member—Both the appeals which have arisen out of the judgment of the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II dated 18.9.1998 are being disposed of by this common order, one of which has been filed by the complainant Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta and the another the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter be referred as the Board).
2. Facts relevant for disposal of these two appeals in brief are that the complainant Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta got himself registered with the Board for allotment of a house constructed by it in the year 1989 under Parijat Scheme in MIG B F III type A. The area of the residential plot being 18 × 10.5 = 189 sq. mtrs. The complainant after being registered deposited the four instalments as demanded by the Board. An allotment letter dated 12.2.1993 was thereafter issued to the complainant demanding a total amount of Rs. 1,14,370/- within the period of three months as detailed in para 5 of the complaint. The complainant deposited the aforesaid amount within the time allowed by the Board. He however questioned about the inclusion of an amount of Rs. 1,060/- as interest in the allotment letter. He further entered into a correspondence with the Board claiming interest on the amounts deposited by him @ 18% p.a. instead of 6% p.a. as calculated by the Board. He also questioned the charging of excessive value of the land, i.e. extra land covering an area of 52.20 sq. mtrs. @ Rs. 531/ sq. mtr. instead of Rs. 425/ sq. mtr. charged by the Board for the (sic.) original area of the land measuring 189 sq. mtrs. A correspondence also entered between the complainant and the Board for an incorrect inclusion of Rs. 25,000/- in the subsequent letter issued by the Board which was subsequently waived by the Board after the matter was explained and perused by the complainant. Ultimately a letter to take possession by the complainant was issued by the Board on 4.7.1994. Since the complainant pointed out certain deficiencies in the house allotted to him; after removal of all the deficiencies as pointed out by the complainant, another letter dated 9.1.1995 was issued by the Board asking the complainant to take possession by 25.1.1995. The complainant also averred that the Board in order to cause mental agony and to lower his reputation in the public published in the local paper that certain amounts are still due to be paid by the complainant to the Board. Be that as it may, the complainant took possession of the house allotted by the Board on 30.1.1995. The complainant having been insisting for charging from him an excessive rate of land for the extra land allotted to him as also for incorrect calculation of the interest and also alleging to cause injury to his reputation ultimately filed a complaint in the District Forum on 25.6.1997 claiming the total amount of Rs. 2,41,070.98 including Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for late delivery of the house, mental agony and physical discomfort as detailed in the complaint. The complaint was opposed and contested by the Board by filing a written reply. It was averred that since the complainant was residing out of Jaipur for one reason or the other he delayed taking delivery of the house by the Board. A plea of limitation has also been raised by the Board alleging that the complainant having taken possession of the house on 30.1.1995 and the complaint having been filed on 25.6.1997, i.e. beyond 2 years of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; the complaint is also barred by limitation. It was, therefore, urged that the complaint be dismissed with cost. The learned District Forum, however, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the material produced before it allowed the complaint filed by Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta by allowing an amount of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort and losses suffered by the complainant and also awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Aggrieved both the parties hav
