Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Rajasthan Housing Board —Appellant
versus
Santosh Kumar Hakim —Respondent
First Appeal No.891 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 03/08/2015 in Complaint No.59/2010 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 14.6.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Vivek Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vijaypal Sharma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Government/semi-Government agencies have no right to accept any money from public unless they are ready with a scheme for which allotment can be made within a reasonable time.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Housing—Allotment of house—Cancellation of registration—Non-refund of money—Board has not been able to maintain their own record properly nor they have been able to look after interest of gullible public who deposit their hard-earned money with Board in hope of getting a residential property and keep on waiting for the same for decades together—Government/semi-Government agencies have no right to accept any money from public unless they are ready with a scheme for which allotment can be made within a reasonable time—State Commission have come to right conclusion that in absence of relevant documents produced by Board complaint against them deserves to be allowed—Order passed by State Commission upheld.
       Held: Further, it is an admitted fact on record that the Board accepted his application alongwith an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- for the scheme floated in the year 2007 and issued an allotment letter as well on 13.02.2008. The contention of the Board that the said letter was issued by mistake and was cancelled vide letter dated 15.06.2008, speaks of height of inefficiency in the working of the Board. It is a clear indication that the Board has not been able to maintain their own record properly, nor they have been able to look after the interest of the gullible public, who deposit their hard-earned money with this Board in the hope of getting a residential property and keep on waiting for the same for decades together. These Government/semi-Government agencies have no right to accept any money from the public, unless they are ready with a scheme, for which, allotment can be made within a reasonable time. The State Commission have come to the right conclusion that in the absence of relevant documents produced by the Board, the complaint against them deserves to be allowed. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission in giving the direction that the Board should allot a flat to the complainant in the Ramakrishna Scheme, or a similar flat in some other scheme on the terms and conditions at the cost prevailing in the year 2008. The State Commission have also observed that since the price of the property would have escalated in the mean time, no further compensation was being provided for mental agony and litigation cost etc. It is evident that the impugned order has been made after making a logical analysis of all the facts on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their landmark judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SC Cases 65: [2004] 5 Supreme 51 The facts and the circumstances of the present case indicate that the above judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is fully applicable in the present case. Based on the discussion above, this appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed. The order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 13 to 16)
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.08.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 59/2010, filed by the present respondent Santosh Kumar Hakim, vide which, the said complaint was allowed.

2. The facts of the case as admitted by both the parties are that the complainant/respondent Santosh Kumar Hakim made an application to the appellant, Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’), for allotment of a house under their 1979 General Registration Scheme, vide application form No. 75505, by depositing a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 30.01.1980. A receipt of deposit and a registration certificate was issued by the Board on 29.10.1980 to the complainant. Thereafter, in response to an offer from the Board, the complainant deposited another sum of Rs.7,000/- ON 12.06.1982 and requested for change in his income group from Medium Income Group “B” to Higher Income Group (HIG). Thereafter, according to the Board, they issued letter No. 184 dated 09.01.97, whereby the complainant was asked to deposit certain sums in instalments within the time schedule laid down. However, the said letter was received back by the Board as per their own version, as the complainant had changed his address and such change was not in the knowledge of the Board. As stated by the Board, they sent another letter dated 15.01.2000 at the new address of the complainant, informing him about the earlier letter of 09.01.97 and calling upon him to deposit the amount. Following his failure to deposit the amount, the registration of the complainant was cancelled vide letter No. 484 dated 21.06.2000. However, this is contested by the complainant by saying that he never received any letter dated 21.06.2000. Further, the complainant made an application on 20.11.2007 under General Registration Scheme 2007 of the Board in Ramakrishna Apartment Phase-II, alongwith deposit of Rs.1,90,000/-. Vide letter dated 13.02.2008, the Board issued a reservation letter to him, intimating that a flat in the Medium Income Group “B” in Ramakrishna Apartment had been reserved for him. However, just after four months, the Board issued another letter No. 1086 dated 18.06.2008 to him, saying that the letter dated 13.02.2008 was being cancelled as his earlier registration had already been cancelled. The version of the Board is that letter dated 13.02.2008 had been issued by mistake inadvertently, which was rectified by issuing letter dated 18.06.2008 and thereafter, they returned the money deposited by him as well. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint, in question, before the State Commission which was allowed vide impugned order dated 03.08.2015 in which, the State Commission stated as follows:-

“7. On the basis of record placed before us, we are of the view that the complainant was not informed of the cancellation of his original registration nor any intimation to deposit the seed money was sent to him is proved. No reminders were issued to him. Thus, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the opposite party is directed to allot him a flat in Ramakrishna Apartment Scheme. In case of non-availability in this scheme, the opposite party is directed to allot a similar flat in some other scheme on the terms and conditions and cost prevailing in the year 2008. The complainant will deposit all the cost and other amounts as demanded by the opposite party. The order will be complied with within two months.

8. Since we have ordered that the complainant be allotted flat on the cost prevailing in the year 2008, this will cover the compensation for mental agony and cost of prosecution for the complainant as the prices after 2008 have been markedly escalated. The complaint is allowed as above.”

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTGovernment/semi-Government agencies have no right to accept any money from public unless they are ready with a scheme for which allotment can be made within a reasonable time.

IMPORTANT POINT
Government/semi-Government agencies have no right to accept any money from public unless they are ready with a scheme for which allotment can be made within a reasonable time.