Arvind Kumar Gupta vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

BOTH the appeals which have arisen out of the judgment of the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II dated 18.9.1998 are being disposed of by this common order, one of which has been filed by the complainant Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta and the another the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter be referred as the Board).

FACTS relevant for disposal of these two appeals in brief are that the complainant Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta got himself registered with the Board for allotment of a house constructed by it in the year 1989 under Parijat Scheme in MIG B F III type A. The area of the residential plot being 18 10.5 = 189 sq. mtrs. The complainant after being registered deposited the four instalments as demanded by the Board. An allotment letter dated 12.2.1993 was thereafter issued to the complainant demanding a total amount of Rs. 1,14,370/- within the period of three months as detailed in para 5 of the complaint. The complainant deposited the aforesaid amount within the time allowed by the Board. He however questioned about the inclusion of an amount of Rs. 1,060/- as interest in the allotment letter. He further entered into a correspondence with the Board claiming interest on the amounts deposited by him @ 18% p.a. instead of 6% p.a. as calculated by the Board. He also questioned the charging of excessive value of the land, i.e. extra land covering an area of 52.20 sq. mtrs. @ Rs. 531/ sq. mtr. instead of Rs. 425/ sq. mtr. charged by the Board for the (sic.) original area of the land measuring 189 sq. mtrs. A correspondence also entered between the complainant and the Board for an incorrect inclusion of Rs. 25,000/- in the subsequent letter issued by the Board which was subsequently waived by the Board after the matter was explained and perused by the complainant. Ultimately a letter to take possession by the complainant was issued by the Board on 4.7.1994. Since the complainant pointed out certain deficiencies in the house allotted to him; after removal of all the deficiencies as pointed out by the complainant, another letter dated 9.1.1995 was issued by the Board asking the complainant to take possession by 25.1.1995. The complainant also averred that the Board in order to cause mental agony and to lower his reputation in the public published in the local paper that certain amounts are still due to be paid by the complainant to the Board. Be that as it may, the complainant took possession of the house allotted by the Board on 30.1.1995. The complainant having been insisting for charging from him an excessive rate of land for the extra land allotted to him as also for incorrect calculation of the interest and also alleging to cause injury to his reputation ultimately filed a complaint in the District Forum on 25.6.1997 claiming the total amount of Rs. 2,41,070.98 including Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for late delivery of the house, mental agony and physical discomfort as detailed in the complaint. The complaint was opposed and contested by the Board by filing a written reply. It was averred that since the complainant was residing out of Jaipur for one reason or the other he delayed taking delivery of the house by the Board. A plea of limitation has also been raised by the Board alleging that the complainant having taken possession of the house on 30.1.1995 and the complaint having been filed on 25.6.1997, i.e. beyond 2 years of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; the complaint is also barred by limitation. It was, therefore, urged that the complaint be dismissed with cost. The learned District Forum, however, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the material produced before it allowed the complaint filed by Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta by allowing an amount of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort and losses suffered by the complainant and also awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved both the parties have approached this Commission; the complainant to get the balance amount of Rs. 41,070.98 as claimed by him in the complaint and the Board to set aside the order of the learned District Forum under challenge dated 18.9.1998.

We have given due thought and consideration to the matter and have examined the record in great detail.

FROM the pleadings of the parties it is made out that the complainant has been claiming not only the pricing/cost of the extra land charged by the Board as also the rate of interest awarded by the Board on the amounts deposited by him from time to time. It has been the settled view of Hon''ble the National Commission as well as this Commission that after taking delivery of the possession of a house built by the Board the matter pertaining to the pricing cannot be challenged by the allottee. This has been so held by Hon''ble the National Commission in the case of Housing Board Haryana v. Kartar Singh etc. of Hissar, I (1995) CPJ 7 (NC). Similarly Hon''ble the National Commission has held in the case of D.D.A. v. Kamini Chopra, I (1996) CPJ 285 (NC)=1996 NCJ 200 (NC), that question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer FORA and interest is one of the components taken into consideration while determining the price of land. It is thus the settled position that after an allottee takes possession and delivery of the house constructed by the Board neither he can question the pricing policy nor the price nor the principle of charging interest. It appears that the learned District Forum has not given any attention to the aforesaid position of law and in its anxiety has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs taking into consideration that the house could be delivered to the complainant only after more than 2V4 years. The learned District Forum has not detailed the reasons for arriving at a quantum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation. Moreover from the perusal of the complaint it is made out that though the complainant had taken delivery and possession of the house in January, 1995 yet the complaint has been filed by him on 25.6.1997, i.e. after the expiry of two years as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no mention in the complaint for filing delayed complaint after the expiry of two years. There is simply a mention of certain letters dated 2.8.1995, 13.12.1995 and 19.1.1996 alleged to have been issued by the Board and thus stating that the complaint is within limitation. We fail to understand when the possession and delivery of the house has been taken by the complainant in January, 1995, the cause of action has come into being right from that particular day and it could never be treated to have stopped or deferred by virtue of the alleged letters dated 2.8.1995, 13.12.1995 and 19.1.1996. In any view of the matter when once the complainant has taken the possession and delivery of the house the only remedy open to him to seek a redress for his grievances regarding costing of the extra land allotted to him or for that matter for allowing or charging interest at a lesser rate instead of allowing him an enhanced rate of interest are questions which can be agitated by the complainant before a competent Civil Court. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to allow Appeal No. 1950/1998 filed by the complainant whereas the Appeal No. 2025/ 1998 filed by the Board has substance and merits and is allowed. While allowing the Appeal No. 2025/1998 filed by the Board the order of the learned District Forum dated 18.9.1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. The complainant would be at liberty to agitate for his grievances if so advised before a competent Civil Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.