B.H.TOLANI vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS is an appeal against the Order of the State Commission, Rajasthan, dated 3.7.1991, in Complaint No. 3 of 1990, whereby the complainant was only partially successful and did not get any compensation on the counts he had detailed. Thus he has appealed to this Commission. 1. The facts of the case as found by the State Commission are : The complainant submitted an application under the scheme "General Registration Scheme, 1979" in middle income group A, (MIG ''A'') on 11.1.1980 for the allotment of the house. He deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by challan and deposited form No. 17791 for registration with the Board. The complainant was registered for the allotment of the house in middle income group ''A'' on 27.9.1980.

IT is said that for the middle income group ''A'' the cost of the house determined was Rs. 42,000 /- and the amount was to be deposited in equal instalments of Rs. 8,000/-. It is said that the complainant submitted an application that as his annual income has changed, his registration from middle income group ''A'' may be changed to middle income group ''B'' and, therefore, he deposited the balance of Rs. 1,600/-vide challan dated 14.6.1982. On 20.12.1983 the complainant''s name was registered in Middle Income Group ''B''. According to the complainant price that was fixed under Clause 2.8 of the Scheme amounting to Rs. 42,000/- could only be increased by 10% that is by Rs. 4,200/- and, therefore, the cost of the house so far as the house of MIG ''B'' is concerned could be Rs. 46,200/-. It is said that the house which was to be allotted to MIG ''B'' should be of 10.50 x 18 meters that is 189 sq. meters. The house to be allotted was to contain two bed rooms, one drawing room, one multi-purpose verandah, kitchen, bath and latrine and open land for constructing garage and also open land in front and back and inside. It has been alleged by the complainant that the Board discriminated between the complainant and other influential persons. The Board demanded improper amount of Rs. 30,400/- in forming him that the first instalment will be of Rs. 12,000/-, second instalment will be of Rs. 12,000/- which are to be deposited within a month and third instalment of Rs. 6,400 / - is to be deposited after six months otherwise the reservation and registration will be considered cancelled. The complainant deposited first instalment with the Board on 19.7.1989. The Board allotted house No. 91/57 vide letter dated 13.12.1989 in which it was stated that the cost of the plot will be Rs. 29,484/- and the cost of the construction will be Rs. 1,09,666/-. In this way Rs. 1,39,150/- were demanded from the complainant. The complainant alleged that various other amounts were demanded from him. The complainant has produced allotment-cum-pos-session letter dated 13.12.1989 in respect of house No. 91/57 MIG ''B'' Group. The date fixed for possession was 9.1.1990 and the amount was to be deposited on or before 10.2.1990. The allotment was on hire purchase basis and monthly instalment payable was Rs.1,500/- per month. The amount demanded vide allotment-cum-possession letter was Rs. 34,399/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the Board has enhanced the price unilaterally which in fact (and) it should not have and could not demand the amount which it has demanded. Mainly the grievances of the complainant are : (1) that the Board could not vary the price fixed in the scheme; (2) that the Board could not reduce the area of the land from 189 sq. mtrs. which is mentioned in the scheme to 162 sq. mtrs.; (3) that the Board also could not reduce the constructed area to that of the bed room, one spacious verandah, combining toilet and bathroom and reducing the space for garage as provided in the scheme at the price of Rs.42,000/-; (4) that the material for the construction of the house was of sub-standard so far as effective foundation, low load bearing capacity, plaster, flooring, doors, windows, wood-work, sanitary fittings, electric fittings; (5) that the Board could not increase, the declared price of Rs. 42,000/- to Rs. 1,09,666/-; (6) that formerly the instalment fixed was of Rs. 440/- per month which has been arbitrarily increased to Rs. 1,500/- per month; (7) that the Board is liable for the delay caused in giving possession; and (8) that the complainant has been discriminated against other allottees under the same Scheme, same location and same type of house.

In contesting the complaint the Opposite Party has stated that it was only an indication of the area pertaining to MIG ''B'' Group house that they had given and there was no proposal as such or a specific contract.

THE instalments made were also sought to be justified on the ground that the allotment was made on the hire-purchase system, wherein interest is included. The Board also has justification to increase the seed money keeping in view the increase in cost, and to cancel an allotment, if need be.

THE respondents have categorically denied that the quality of construction was substandard, as it was in accordance with the standards fixed by the P.W.D. Also they state that electrical connection was done by an approved contractor. It was submitted that the house allotted was complete and the complainant was informed that on furbishing the application and other required documents within one week, possession would be handed over after necessary formalities. It was denied that there was any violation of agreement arrived at between the complainant and the Board.

YET the complainant has levelled the charge of unfair trade practice on the opposite party/respondent. The complainant has not placed any material on record to show that the allotment which was made on hire-purchase system to him vide allotment-cum-possession letter dated 13.12.1989 was considerably delayed allotment because of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties or for that fault of the Board, there was short coming in rendering service by it as allotment-cum-possession letter was issued on 13.12.1989.

LEARNED Counsel appearing for the complainant has not pointed out any mistake in the allotment letter dated 13.12.1989 to show that there was any mistake in calculating the value of the house and other payable charges. Nothing has also been stated in the written arguments that the amounts mentioned in the allotment letter are not in accordance with the Regulations. It is settled that the complainant has no right to insist that he should be allotted a house at the then prevailing cost when his name was registered under the Scheme, and whatever was provided in the booklet in regard to the area of the house and the apartments were merely indications. This does not mean that a binding contract between the parties came into existence. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. But, the State Commission found that there was no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. And no error or illegality has been found in the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 13.12.1989. The State Commission made the following Order: (1) That the opposite parties shall deliver the possession of House No. 91 /57 MIG ''B'' Housing Scheme after completing it in all respects for which the complainant shall contact the concerned Engineer of opposite parties within one month from the date of the receipt of the Order. (2) That the complainant will appear before the opposite parties within one month from the date of the receipt of the Order and he shall comply with all the conditions mentioned in the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 13.12.1989. (3) That in spite of issue of the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 13.12.1989 the complainant did not take possession of House No. 91 /57 after completing the formalities and filed the complaint before the State Commission on 9.1.1990, so he is not entitled to any interest on the amount that is lying in deposit with the opposite parties. (4) That the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and his claim for compensation is rejected. (5) That in case of necessity on account of unforeseen events or any other exigency, the parties shall be at liberty to move the State Commission for any other direction/order which may be necessary in the circumstances of the case.

ON a lengthy 12 page complaint, the State Commission has discussed each point in detail and delivered an exhaustive order, but the complainant was not satisfied with it as it did not give him the reliefs he was seeking.

WE have considered the written as well as oral arguments submitted by both parties, and also perused the additional written submissions given by the complainant, and have come to the conclusion that the order of the State Commission does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the State Commission''s order is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.