ANIRUDH PRASAD SRIVASTAV vs Bihar State Housing Board

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant had applied for a Twin MIG house and registered himself for the same in 1979 with the respondent Board. The cost of the house at that time was estimated at Rs. 58,000. It is the complainant''s case while some others were allotted houses who had registered later than him, he was not allotted a house which was done only in November, 1984 that too in the form of a flat instead of twin MIG house and the cost was fixed at Rs. 82,530 and again increased to Rs. 2,06,632. 50 in 1993. He was asked to pay certain instalments which he paid in time. Possession of the house has not been given even when copy of the signed Hire Purchase Agreement was given to the respondent Board. The flat in question No. 111/5/22 is in the occupation of some anti-social elements, is in a damaged condition and water connection is not available. After hearing both the parties the State Commission dismissed the complaint maintaining that the only question involved is of enhancement in prices and which cannot be looked into by the Consumer Fora. It is against this order that the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal. We called for the record of this case from the respondent which he filed. They are some six loose papers most of the pages not legible and some are in such fine print that it is difficult to make out what it has to say.

It was argued by the appellant (himself) that the State Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint as it was not a case alone of price revision by the respondent Board but also that his other complaints like house being in bad shape, non-execution of Hire Purchase Agreement, repair to flat, its vacation by anti-social elements, etc. have not been looked into by the State Commission. The learned Counsel for the respondent Board argued it is mainly the price escalation of the flat which the complainant has assaulted and which question has been gone into by the State Commission and after due consideration dismissed it.

WE have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. We see that the appellant''s application dated 18. 1. 1979 is for twin MIG house, second third and fourth choice being a row house, plot. We do not see as to under what circumstances, the respondent board came to allot a flat that too only in 1984? We also see that the allegation of the complainant that some others who had registered later than him had been allotted houses earlier than him, has also not been gone into by the State Commission. Request for vacant possession of the flat after entering into a Hire Purchase Agreement has also not been addressed nor is the question of repairs to the flat on account of its occupation/misuse by some unauthorised persons. Record made available to us is also incomplete and does not help us in any way to do justice to the parties. In the above circumstances, we have little option but to set aside the order of the State Commission and to remand the case to the State Commission to look into all the questions raised by the appellant/complainant and also may consider appointment of a Local Commissioner to look into the status of the flat. Record of the respondent Board is returned under Registered cover. No orders as to costs. Appeal allowed.