BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN,

BENCH NO.3 JAIPUR

FIRST APPEAL NO : 1851/2011

Rajasthan

Housing

Board,

Jyoti

Nagar,

Jaipur

through

Commissioner,

Rajasthan

Housing

Board,

Jaipur.

……….Appellant/Non-petitioner

Vs.

Bhanwar Singh S/o Mr.Nand Singh, R/o Nehru Nagar,

Jaipur.

……….Respondent/Complainant

Date of Order – 13/01/2015

Before:

Hon’ble Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra

– Presiding Member

Hon’ble Mr.Kailash Soyal

- Member

Mr.Rajesh Vashishth & Mr.S.C.Sethi . . . . .

Counsel for the appellant/ non-petitioner.

Mr.Vinod Goyal . . . . . Counsel for the

respondent/ Complainant.

JUDGEMENT

PER MR.ANIL KUMAR MISHRA (PRESIDING MEMBER)

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the

appellant

–

Rajasthan

Housing

Board

(hereinafter referred to as “the RHB”)

against the judgment dated 01.09.2011 of

the learned District Consumer Redressal

Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur (hereinafter

referred to as “the DCF”) in complaint

No.178/2011 (Second, No.1721/2007) titled

Bhanwar Singh Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board

&

Ors.,

whereby

the

complaint

of

Mr.Bhanwar

Singh,

the

complainant

(hereinafter

referred

to

as

“the

complainant”)

was

allowed

and

the

appellant RHB was directed to evaluate the

cost of the house No.13/26, Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer allotted to the complainant at

the rate prevailing on 19.03.1997 and

further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as

compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of

proceedings.

2.

The brief facts giving rise to the present

appeal are that the complainant filed a

complaint before the learned DCF with an

averment

that

the

complainant

got

registration for allotment of an LIG House

with the RHB under the hire purchase

scheme in 1982. As the house was not

allotted for a long time, the complainant

filed a complaint No.511/1994 before the

DCF, which was allowed vide judgment dated

19.03.1997 and the RHB was directed to

allot a house to the complainant as per

his

priority

under

the

hire

purchase

scheme. Despite the order of the DCF, the

house was not allotted to the complainant

till

2005

and

hence,

an

application

No.173/2006 u/s 27 Consumer Protection

Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”) was filed. The RHB submitted a copy

of the draw of lots dated 23.07.2007,

whereby a house was allotted to the

complainant. So the application u/s 27 of

the Act was dismissed, as it had become

infructuous. Later on, an allotment order

dated 07.12.2007 was issued in the name of

the complainant, but cost of the house was

valued at the rate prevailing in 2007.

Therefore, a fresh complaint No.1721/2007

was filed before the learned DCF with a

prayer to levy the cost of the house as it

prevailed on 19.03.1997. The aforesaid

complaint was allowed by the impugned

judgment.

3.

The present appeal has been filed by the

RHB on the ground that the impugned

judgment

is

contrary

to

the

facts,

evidence and settled principles of law.

The learned DCF vide it’s first judgment

dated 19.03.1997 had merely directed the

RHB to allot a house to the complainant as

per his priority under the hire purchase

scheme.

The

aforesaid

judgment

was

complied with by issuing an allotment-cum-

possession letter dated 07.12.2007 to the

complainant, but he did not deposit the

requisite amount and hence, his allotment

was

cancelled

vide

letter

dated

17.12.2008. The complainant has already

filed a writ petition No.333/2009 before

Hon’ble

High

Court

with

an

identical

relief

and

hence,

the

complaint

No.1721/2007

is

not

maintainable.

The

learned DCF did not have any jurisdiction

to determine the cost of the house and

therefore, the present appeal be allowed

and the complaint be dismissed.

4.

We have heard the arguments of both the

parties and carefully perused the record,

evidence and impugned judgment.

5.

It

is

an

admitted

fact

that

the

complainant booked a LIG hous

Click Here to Read the rest of this document