IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant cannot be rewarded for his own laches.

Vinay Kumar, Member—This appeal arises from the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.68 of 2010. The complaint related to purchase of a bungalow from the respondent/Rajasthan Housing Board under the Raj Angan Scheme, which was a prestigious scheme for NRIs. It was alleged that the possession was handed over with a delay of almost three yeaRs. Therefore, it was claimed that the complainant was entitled to receive interest for the period of delay, with solatium.

2. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint observing that—

“Under such schemes by a public body the houses are constructed on contract basis and in every contract fix norms and specifications are mentioned in the agreement with the contractor. If any major changes are sought by the allotee, there has to be some modification in the terms and conditions in the agreement with the contractor. In such circumstances delay in giving the possession of the complete house cannot be attributed to the Housing Board and in our opinion it was the complainant who was responsible in getting the construction of the particular house in time and getting the possession. After taking the possession of the house without any protest the complainant cannot be allowed to put the entire blame on the Housing Board so as to claim any interest or solatium as per terms and conditions of the allotment under a particular scheme.”

3. The Appellant/Complainant was given a registration letter on 23.1.2003, which was followed by an allotment letter of a bungalow under this scheme from the respondent/RHB on 12.2.2008. The claim for interest and solatium was based on conditions

number 16 and 18 in the letter of registration—

“16 The RHB shall endeavour to give possession of the house to the intending allotee (s) within thirty months from the date of reservation.

18. The intending allotees(s) agrees that, as a result of any legislation, order or rule, after allotment the RHB is unable to complete the house/or to deliver possession thereof to the intending allottee(s), the only responsibility and liability of RHB will be to pay the intending allotee(s) and several other persons who have purchased or who may purchase hereafter houses and other portions in the same building(s). The total amount (attributed to the said house) that may have been received by the RHB at the time along with interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount, in the manner as may be decided by the RHB and save as aforesaid, neither party shall have any right or claim against the other under or in relation to this agreement. If however, the RHB delays in allotment, the RHB shall pay solatium @ 6% per annum on the amount paid by the intending allottee (s) to the RHB after expiry of the indicative delivery period mentioned in the foregoing paragraph 16 for the period of delay.”

4. As observed by the State Commission, the Complainant first accepted actual possession of the Bungalow on 11.4.2008, without any protest and thereafter filed a consumer complaint on 19.10.2010. While the complaint, as seen from the record, acknowledges possession on 11.4.2008, it is silent on whether it was accepted with protest or not. In any case, there was an obvious delay of over two and half years in filing the complaint. This has rightly been objected to by the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board, in the written response before the State Commission. The written response also clearly states that acceptance of possession by the Complainant was without any protest.

5. Respondent, Rajasthan Housing Board, has given full details before the State Commission of the number of changes in the standard construction plan, which were effected between start of construction in January, 2003 till its actual completion in 2008. The relevant correspondence between the Complainant, on one hand and the respondent/respondent’s representatives, detailing those modifications and the manner in which cost of modificati