BEGUM BARKAT NISA vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS appeal by a complainant from the order dated 31.7.2001 whereby District Forum, Jaipur-I has awarded compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort at Rs. 2,000/- and cost at Rs. 1,000/-, seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation on the basis of following facts: Begum Barkat Nisa, the appellant-complainant, is senior citizen aged more than 71 years. Way back in the year 1973 she had applied to the respondent Housing Board for registration for allotment of a 49.31 sq. mtr. house in the Janata Income Group, which was the lowest income group category. She had duly completed all the required formalities.

ON 29.12.1980, she was informed of the reservation of a house of the desired size and category for her in Van Vihar Colony. She duly deposited the two instalments of seed money of Rs. 1,800/- each by 9.5.1981. By their allotment letter dated 22.5.1982, the respondents allotted Flat No. 2/16 on the first floor in the said colony. In respect to the allotted house, the complainant paid all the dues, as were required of her to be paid and further deposited three monthly instalments. On 3.12.1983, she was required to complete some more formalities regarding submission of affidavit and undertaking, etc. so that possession of the allotted flat might be delivered to her. She duly completed all such formalities besides submitting a complete duplicate file as her original file with the respondents was reported to be missing or misplaced in the office. Anyway, by their letters dated 27.1.1984 and 23.3.1984 she was required to present herself before the authorities concerned to take the delivery of the possession of the allotted house. But on going to the site, she came to know that the flat allotted to her was occupied by some victims of flood which had overtaken the City of Jaipur in the year 1981. The said flat was later on regularised in favour of such occupants. The appellant could not be put in possession thereof.

After having tried in vain with the concerned officials/officers of the respondents for more than five years for allotment and possession of a house to her, she ultimately filed Complaint No. 425 of 1989 against them before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed her complaint on 31.7.1990 granting relief in the following manner: xxx xxx xxx

FEELING aggrieved against the above order of the District Forum, the respondents filed Appeal No. 36 of 1991 before this Commission. This Commission disposed of the appeal by its order dated 1.5.1992 in the following manner: In these circumstances it is directed that the complainant-respondent should give her option whether she wants a flat in Malviya Nagar or an independent house in Mansarovar which may be allotted in the same income group to her within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. The option should be in respect of the flat in Malviya Nagar or independent house in Mansarovar which is vacant and has not been allotted to anybody so far. After the receipt of the option from the complainant-respondent, the opposite party-appellant shall issue an allotment letter to the complainant-respondent allotting that house to her. The price that should be charged from her in the special circumstances of the case which will not form precedent will be the cost which is to be assessed when the house was completed, as the allotment letter of house No. 2/16 FF Van Vihar Scheme was issued to the complainant-respondent on 22.3.1984. The amount that is lying in deposit with the opposite party together with interest that she is entitled to get, will be adjusted against the cost of the house to be allotted to her and the balance of the amount should be recovered in accordance with the disposal of the Property Regulations framed by the Rajasthan Housing Board. The net result of the discussion made hereinabove is that the directions of the District Forum for the payment of compensation and to allot the house to the complainant at the cost which prevailed then are not set aside. It is ordered that the complainant-respondent shall give her option in regard to the house within one month from the date of the receipt of the order and after the receipt of the option the opposite party-appellant shall issue an allotment-cum-possession letter. The complainant shall be liable to pay the amount in accordance with the terms which have been stated hereinabove. Although as per directions of this Commission, the appellant had exercised her options and communicated the same to the respondent vide Registered letter dated 2.12.1992 which was received by them on 3.12.1992 but they did not deliver the possession of a flat to her. After having waited for another three years for an action by the respondents in the matter, she ultimately filed a Misc. Application No. 27 of 1993 under Section 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act) against the respondents before this Commission. By order dated 6.1.1995 this Commission disposed of such application with the observation that since the basic order of the District Forum dated 31.7.1990 stood merged with the appellate order dated 1.5.1992, the District Forum was the correct Forum to enforce the above order of the Commission. Thereupon the appellant filed Misc. Application No. 102 of 1995 under Section 27 of the Act before the District Forum.

IT was during the pendency of appellants Application No. 102 of 1995 that the respondents allotted flat No. 43/2/1 in their Mansarovar Scheme to the appellant. But on perusal of the said allotment letter, the appellant noted that the respondents had made totally false entries therein. On objection raised by the appellant against such false entries and excessive claim made by the respondents, they rectified the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 18.3.1997 but still left mistakes therein. Tired of the prolonged litigation the appellant, as averred in para 16 of the Memorandum of April, took possession of the allotted house on 14.5.1997. Although she invited the attention of the District Forum to the apparently existing mistakes in the allotment letter regarding her pecuniary liability and prayed for award of adequate compensation for the delayed delivery of the possession of a flat to her even after specific direction of the State Commission. But the District Forum dismissed appellants application under Section 27 of the Act on 27.12.1999 with the observation that the prayer made by her gave rise to a separate and independent cause of action for filing a fresh complaint for appropriate relief. The appellant thereupon filed the complaint giving rise to this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that although the learned District Forum rightly appreciated that even after the specific order of the State Commission dated 1.5.1992 the respondent took as many as more than five years in complying with such order with no plausible explanation but it erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- only as compensation for the mental agony suffered by an old lady to the insensitive approach by the authorities concerned. We find some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. Need we recall that originally flat No. 2/16 on first floor in Van Vihar Colony had been allotted to the appellant by the respondents and possession thereof was offered to her on 23.3.1984. But such possession could not be delivered to her due to the allotted house having been occupied since 1981 by the victim of flood in that year. But the appellant was not at fault in that. She had deposited all the amount which she was required to deposit from time-to-time. For almost six years she had waited for allotment of another house to her. But when one was not allotted to her, she had to file the complaint which was allowed on 31.7.1990. The appeal against that order was also disposed of by the Commission on 1.5.1992 directing the respondents to allot a house to her within one month of the communication of her option by the appellant to the respondent. But such mandatory directions of the State Commission were conveniently ignored by the respondent though she had communicated her option to them on 3.12.1992. Twice she had to approach the redressal agencies under the Act and it was after initiation of proceedings under Section 27 and filing another complaint as per direction of the District Forum that she was delivered the possession of the allotted flat as late as on 14.5.1997 and that too after having realised the entire sale-consideration of the flat from her in lumpsum. All these facts justify her claim for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

IN view of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified to the effect that instead of paying Rs. 2,000/- as compensation, the respondent shall pay to her compensation at Rs. 12,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order of the District Forum and shall further pay cost of appeal at Rs. 3,000/- to her. The amount of compensation as well as the amount of cost imposed by the Forum and the Commission shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant through Demand Draft sent to her by registered post A.D. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 15% p.a. till full and final payment. The Housing Board shall realise all the expenses incurred in connection with this litigation, including the amounts payable under this order from the delinquent and erring official after holding such inquiry as it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal disposed of.