STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/17/80 PRAMOD SHARMA PRESENT ADDRESS - MIG 61, GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MPHB PRESENT ADDRESS - PARYAWAS BHAWAN, BHOPAL. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

ESTATE OFFICER, MPHB PRESENT ADDRESS - AYODHYA NAGAR, DIV. 4, BHOPAL. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

PRAMOD SHARMA FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MPHB DATED: 22/05/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 10.01.2017 passed in C.C.No.307/2009 by District Commission, Bhopal)

PRAMOD SHARMA, S/O SHRI B. L. SHARMA, R/O MIG-61, GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.) … APPELLANT Versus

1. CHIEF ESTATE OFFICER, M.P.HOUSING BOARD, PARYAWAS BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)

2. ESTATE OFFICER, M.P.HOUSING BOARD, AYODHYA NAGAR, CITY DIVISION NO.4, BHOPAL (M.P.) … RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES Shri Yogesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Girish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

ORDER (Passed On 22.05.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.307/2009, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed. 2. In short, facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that since 1995 he was posted as Legal Inspector in the office of the opposite -2-

parties-housing board and he took a Junior MIG 61, Gautam Nagar, Bhopal in the scheme of rent. The opposite party board in a meeting conducted on 17.12.2007 took decision that the houses under rent scheme be converted into hire purchase scheme for which the complainant gave his consent. The possession of the said house was given to the complainant on 28.10.2005 and given certificate on 25.11.2005. At present the complainant is residing in the said house and is eligible to get the house as per rules. Since the complainant was eligible to get the house therefore, the opposite party-housing board after converting the said house from rent scheme to hire purchase scheme, was allotted to him on 01.02.2008.

3. It is further submitted that opposite party housing board fixed the cost of the house as Rs.3,85,000/- and vide letter dated 19.06.2008 asked the complainant to deposit immediately 10% of the said amount i.e. Rs.38,500/-. The complainant on 23.06.2008 deposited the said amount. Thereafter on 27.08.2008, the complainant wrote to opposite party regarding deposition of the rest amount but the opposite party-housing board neither issued allotment order nor executed agreement. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party-housing board approached the District Commission seeking relief.

4. The opposite party-housing board in their reply before the District Commission denying the allegations made in the complaint submitted that the complainant was appointed on temporary and adhoc basis at the post of legal assistant for a period of 6 months and his services were terminated on 04.09.1997 against which he lodged complaints before the Labour Court, Industrial Court and High Court and on the basis of stay order of the Court he is serving as a temporary worker. Being a temporary employee he took the disputed house on rent basis and therefore, he does not fall within the category of consumer. It is further submitted that as per conditions of the opposite party housing board, the employee who has completed five years service as a regular employee of housing board is entitled to get the benefit of conversion of rent scheme into hire purchase scheme and no case is pending in any court. Since