Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
RESIDENT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD - Appellant
Versus
RAM NIWAS CHANGAL - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4530 and 4531 of 2014 in Appeal No. 415 and 416 of 2013
Decided on : 31-10-2017
Mr. Ankit Acharya, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the principles governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Allotment of Plots - 1986 - [Section 21(b)] - [Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(a), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(q)] - The court discussed the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to take cognizance of consumer complaints. The court also considered the issue of alternative allotment of plots and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The legal provisions were interpreted to determine the rights of the complainants and the obligations of the Housing Board, ultimately influencing the court's decision to uphold the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents made applications for allotment of houses under a self-financing scheme launched by the Rajasthan Housing Board. The Housing Board failed to provide the houses as assured, leading to consumer complaints seeking alternative allotment and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainants fell under the definition of 'consumer' and the consumer fora had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaints. It also found that alternative allotment could be made to the complainants from the vacant MIG category plots. The court upheld the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below, dismissing the revision petitions.
Issues: The issues included the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, the possibility of alternative allotment, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'consumer', the availability of vacant plots for alternative allotment, and the principles governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below.
ORDER
B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member. - These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 24.09.2014, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 415/2013, "Rajasthan Housing Board v. Ram Niwas Changal" & FA No. 416/2013, "Rajasthan Housing Board v. Ram Prakash Changal." dismissing the two appeals filed against the orders dated 04.04.2013 passed by the District Forum Jaipur in Consumer Complaints No. 96/2011 and 97/2011 filed by the respondents in these two revision petitions respectively, allowing the said complaints.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that the respondents/complainants made applications for allotment of houses under the self-financing scheme 2001 launched by the opposite party (OP) Rajasthan Housing Board and deposited a sum of 75,000/- each with them. It is stated that the OP had given assurance to the complainants to provide houses under the scheme, but could not do so for a long time, although the money remained deposited with them. On 31.08.2009, the OPs sent a cheque of 1,09,875/- each to the complainants as refund of the money deposited by them along-with interest. However, the said cheques were not accepted by the complainants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the consumer complaints in question were filed, seeking directions to the OP Housing Board to allot plots available with them at the earlier rates in lieu of the land which was stated to be in dispute. The complainants also demanded a sum of 25,000/- as compensation against mental harassment and 25,000/- as cost of litigation in each case.
3. The complaints were resisted by the OP Housing Board by filing their reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainants had made applications for booking of the property with them in their self-financing scheme 2001, but their arose dispute with regard to the land in question, and hence, the allotment could not be made to the complainants. The OP stated that a stay order had been issued by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the matter and later on, when the said stay order was vacated, the other party filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was still pending. The OP Housing Board took the plea that as per provisions of the said scheme, the amount deposited could be refunded to the applicants with 6% interest p.a. Since the OP Housing Board had sent the refund cheques to the complainants, there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complaints in question should be dismissed.
4. The OP stated that they had not given any assurance to the applicants for the allotment of the land/house in question. Referring to the alternative plots for which the complainants had requested for allotment, the OP Board stated that these plots were not a part of the self-financing scheme.
5. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaints vide their orders dated 04.04.2013 and directed the OP Housing Board to allot one plot each to both the complainants at the rates applicable at the time of registration. The District Forum observed that plots of Middle Income Group (MIG) in category B were vacant, although the complainants had made their registration for HIG category only. The District Forum also allowed litigation cost of 2,500/- to each of the complainants. Being aggrieved against the orders passed by the District Forum, the OP Housing Board challenged the same by way of two separate appeals before the State Commission. However, the said appeals, having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.09.2014, the OP Housing Board is before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
6. During hearing before this Commission, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Hous
