Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (SINGLE BENCH)
V.K. Jain, J.
COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND 3 ORS - Appellant
Vs.
HIRALAL CHANDA - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 613 of 2017, 614 of 2017
Decided On : 04-10-2018
N.K. Chauhan, Adv., S.N. Bohra, Adv., Manju Bohra, Adv.
The obligation to prove the service of demand letters and notices, the obligation to restore allotment, and the limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Restoration of Allotment - Consumer Protection Act, Section 24A - The court discussed the requirement of proof of service of demand letters and notices, the obligation of the petitioner to restore allotment, and the limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant booked a residential flat, but the allotment was later cancelled. The petitioner claimed to have sent demand letters and notices, while the complainant denied receiving them. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, directing restoration of the allotment. The State Commission dismissed the petitioner's appeal and allowed the complainant's appeal by directing payment of compensation. The petitioner appealed to the higher commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the finding that the allotment should not have been cancelled as the demand notice was not served upon the complainant. The court also directed the petitioner to make the allotment to the complainant at the price prevailing on the date of the order of the District Forum.
Issues: Proof of service of demand letters and notices, obligation to restore allotment, compensation payment, and price of the flat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allotment should not have been cancelled as the demand notice was not served upon the complainant, and it should have been restored in accordance with the Office Order. The court also determined the price of the flat for the allotment to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court directed the restoration of the allotment to the complainant at the price prevailing on the date of the order of the District Forum, and no compensation needed to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
V. K. Jain, Presiding Member - The complainant/respondent booked a residential flat with the petitioner depositing a registration amount of Rs. 5,000/- in the year 1985. The case of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 03.09.1993, a residential flat was reserved for the complainant and he was required to deposit three installments, two of Rs. 15,000/- each and the third of Rs. 10,000/-. The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid letter dated 03.09.1993 was never received by him. According to the petitioner, they also sent another letter dated 15.04.1999 to the complainant, requiring him to furnish the proof of the deposit of the aforesaid three installments. According to the complainant, even the letter dated 15.04.1999 was never received by him.
2. The complainant visited the office of the petitioner on 03.05.1999 and submitted a written letter stating therein that on visiting the office of the petitioner, he had come to know about the aforesaid demand. He sought one and a half months' time to deposit the said amount. No specific letter was sent to the complainant acceding to the aforesaid request but a letter dated 26.07.1999 is alleged to have been sent to him, requiring him to furnish proof of deposit of the above referred three installments which were payable on 02.10.1993, 02.04.1994 and 02.10.1994 respectively. Since the complainant had, while submitting his hand written letter dated 03.05.1999, given a fresh address to the petitioner, the said notice dated 26.07.1999 was issued at the new address of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that even the notice dated 26.07.1999 was never received by him. The allotment made to the complainant was later cancelled vide Order dated 29.05.2000 but the cancellation letter bears the old address of the complainant and not the new address which he had submitted to the petitioner on 03.05.1999. Thereafter, an Office Order dated 06.08.2009 came to be issued by the petitioner Board on the basis of a decision taken on 16.07.2009. It was clearly stated in the said Office Order that whether the registration/allotments were cancelled due to administrative mistake of the Board, if the applications were filed within one year of the date of cancellation of the allotment/registration, the registration/allotment will be restored on approval from the Board but where there is no administrative fault on the part of the Board, cancellation of the allotment will not be restored. Though the petitioner had already applied for the restoration of the allotment vide his letter dated 17.12.2008, his allotment was not restored. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia claimed that the complainant having failed to deposit the installments despite reminder and the notice, the allotment had rightly been cancelled.
4. The District Forum ruled in favour of the complainant and directed the petitioner to restore the allotment and make allotment to the complainant at the rate applicable in case of allottees having priority immediately after the priority of the complainant.
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since the complaint was also dissatisfied with the order, he also preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 28.11.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner but allowed the appeal filed by the complainant by directing payment of compensation quantified at Rs. 50,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission.
6. The case of the petitioner is that the first demand letter was sent to the complainant on 03.09.1993. However, no proof of the actual dispatch of the said letter was produced by the petitioner before the District Forum though t
