ORDER

AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), MEMBER

1.      This Order shall decide both the Appeals arising from the impugned Judgment/Order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 94/2014, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the complaint.

2.      For Convenience the parties are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. Smt. Rameshwari Devi is identified as the Complainant. While Rajasthan Housing Board (for short the RHB) is referred to as the OP-1, Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur as OP-2, and the Dy. Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, Circle-I, as OP-3.

3.      Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had responded to an advertisement by the Opposite Parties (the RHB) and applied for an auction purchase of a residential plot (No. 33) in Zone 90, Pratap Nagar, proposing a purchase price of Rs. 33,100/- per square meter. The Complainant paid an initial deposit of Rs. 50,000/- on 13.02.2013 and was declared as the successful bidder. Subsequently, she deposited
Rs. 8,51,000/- on 18.02.2013. An allotment letter was issued on 28.05.2013, stating the total price of the plot as
Rs. 63,15,116/-. After adjusting the amount already deposited, the balance amount to be paid was Rs. 54,14,116/-, which the Complainant deposited within the specified 30-day period through demand drafts and the Opposite Parties issued the receipts on 27.06.2013.

4.       However, it was alleged that the Opposite Parties (RHB) issued a demand letter dated 30.07.2013 to the Complainant to deposit 1% of the entire amount, claiming delay in payment. The Complainant requested for cancellation of this demand and sought possession letter of the property. The Complainant further alleged that the OPs illegally demanded Rs.1,78,740/- for "miscellaneous" charges without providing any explanation, even though the plot was vacant with no construction.

5.      Additionally, the OPs charged 5% as lease money based on the reserve price of the plot, while only 2.5% of the reserve price should have been charged. Moreover, the lease money is payable only after possession of the plot is given to her. Being Aggrieved by the above acts of the OPs the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 94 of 2014, before the Rajasthan State Commission with following prayer:-

1) It may be directed to the respondents to issue the possession letter of the plot no. 90/33, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur and further to give possession of the aforesaid plot to the complainant with immediate effect.

2) It may be directed to the respondents that the complainant be compensate @24% per annum on the total received amount (Rs. 63,15,116/-) i.e. Rs. 18,94,533/- (In words Rs. Eighteen Lacs I Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Three only).

3) It may be directed to the respondents to return the amount i.e. Rs.1,78,740/- (In words Rs. One Lac Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Forty only) to the complainant which has been taken in the name of misc. expenses.

4) It may be directed to the respondents to return the amount i.e. Rs.1,77,876/- (In words Rs. One Lac Seventy Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six 1 only) to the complainant which has been taken in the name of lease money as advance. It may further be directed to the respondents to calculate the lease money @2.5% instead of 5% on the reserve price.

5) The complainant entitled to receive the compensation for an amount of Rs 20,00,000/ (In words Rupees Twenty Lacs due to deficiency in service.

6) Is entitled to receive the cost of the litigation expenses and advocates fee to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-(In words Rupees One Lac),

7) An enquiry must be initiated against the responsible person who committed default and is liable for harassment of the complainant. It may be ordered that the money which has been asked in terms of compensation should be