CHHAGANLAL REGAR vs RESIDENT ENGINEER, RAJ. HOUSING BOARD

COMPLAINANT has filed this complaint against the Resident Engineer and Housing Commissioner and Rajasthan Housing Board claiming various items compensation and costs. It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant had initially got himself registered under Kalptaru Scheme floated by the Rajasthan Housing Board. The complainant had deposited registration amount of Rs.10,000/- on 3.10.1989 under Kalptaru Scheme. Later on the complainant got himself registered under Parijat Self Financing Scheme of the Housing Board. For this purpose, he made an application on 26.9.1990 and deposited the registration amount of Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties should have registered the complainant under Parijat Self-Financing Scheme upto 26.12.1990, but by their negligence, they registered the complainant under Parijat Scheme on 12.5.1992. As a matter of fact, the Housing Board has issued a reservation letter reserving a HIG house Ist category on 12.5.92. As Parijat Scheme was a self financing Scheme, in this reservation letter the office of the Housing Board at Bhilwara mentioned the estimated cost of the house as Rs. 3,10,000/-. The complainant was required to deposit this estimated cost of the house by four six-monthly instalments of Rs. 77,500/- each. In the first instalment, the total registration amount of Rs. 30,000/- which the complainant had deposited was to be adjusted and the first instalment amount of Rs. 47,500/- was to be deposited by the complainant by 12.7.1992. The remaining three six-monthly instalments were to be deposited respectively by 12.11.1993 and 12.5.1993 and 12.11.1993. The complainant deposited the first instalment on 9.7.1992 and the second instalment on 12.11.1992. The office of the Estate Manager of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Bhilwara issued an allotment letter to the complainant alloting to him House No. 2F-16 of HIG category. In this allotment letter, the total cost of the allotment house was mentioned as Rs. 4,09,000/-. After adding certain ancillary charges and after making deduction of the amount which the complainant had already deposited, the complainant was required to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2,56,065/-. The complainant deposited this amount and obtained possession of the allotted house on 9.6.1993.

AS has already been stated, Parijat Scheme floated by the Raj. Housing Board was self financing scheme. The complainant had admittedly made application for registration under Parijat Self-Financing Scheme on 26.9.1990 and he had deposited the required registration amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the said scheme. Under Parijat Self-Finance Scheme, the Housing Board gives an assurance to the registered applicants that the house will be allotted within two years. The house is constructed by the finance provided by the registered applicant and, therefore, the Housing Board does not charge any interest during this period of two years. Similarly, the registered applicant does not get interest on the amount deposited by him for the reasons that the amount is spent by the Board in the construction of the house. If there is delay on the part of the Housing Board in alloting the house under Parijat Self-Finance Scheme, it has been provided in the scheme that with respect to the period beyond two years, the Housing Board will pay interest to the registered applicant on the amounts deposited by him @ 6% p.a. It appears that the complainant wanted to arrange a loan from the Life Insurance Corporation and, therefore, he obtained a certificate from the office of the Raj. Housing Board at Bhilwara in which it was certified by the Resident Engineer of the Board that the complainant was a registered applicant of Raj. Housing Board in Parijat Self-Finance Scheme for HIG I type house at Shastri Nagar Extension, Bhilwara and that he had deposited Rs. 30,000/- upto that date. The Resident Engineer further certified that a reservation letter mentioning approximate cost of house amounting to Rs. 2,60,000/- will be issued to the complainant in due course of time. It is, therefore, clear that the Resident Engineer of the Housing Board on 19.11.1990 admitted that the complainant was a registered applicant under Parijat Self-Financing Scheme and the approximate cost of the house on 19.11.1990 was Rs. 2,60,000/-. However, the opposite parties did not honour their commitment to registered applicants under Parijat Self-Financing Scheme. Soon after the registration of the complainant, the opposite parties were bound to issue letter to the complainant reserving a house in his favour and requiring him to deposit the approximate cost of the house by four six-monthly instalments. It may be mentioned here that under Parijat Self Financing Scheme, the Housing Board makes registration on quarterly basis. Naturally, therefore, the approximate cost of the house which would have been applicable to the complainant would have been that which was relevant to the quarter ending Sept., 1990. As already stated, the Housing Board had itself issued a certificate to the complainant mentioning the approximate cost of the house as Rs. 2,60,000/- which was applicable for HIG house during the relevant quarter of the year 1990. Instead of alloting a house to the complainant within two years, the opposite parties took a period of one year and eight months in issuing the reservation letter requiring the complainant to deposit the six monthly instalments. The result was that the approximate cost of the house which was Rs. 2,60,000/- on 19.11.1990 rose by Rs. 50,000/- i.e. to Rs. 3,10,000/- on 12.5.1992. This was a negligence on the part of the opposite parties that they took one year and eight months in issuing the reservation letter. They totally forgot that it was their obligation undertaken in Parijat Scheme to allot the house within two years. By their own negligence, the complainant had to suffer in the matter of cost of the house on account of delay in starting construction of the house. Ultimate result was that on 30.4.1993 when the allotment of the house was made, the cost of the allotted house increased to Rs. 4,09,000/-. Naturally, the complainant had to suffer in the matter of cost of the house due to the above delay made by the opposite parties in issuing the reservation letter to the complainant and in not alloting the house within two years.

If we look to the entire Parijat Self-Financing Scheme, it is based on a time bound programme. It is true that the opposite parties have provided in Parijat Self-Financing Scheme that if there is delay beyond two years, the Housing Board will pay interest on the amount deposited by the registered applicant @ 6% p.a. The National Commission has recently said that when there was stipulation to pay interest @ 6% p.a in Parijat Self-Financing Scheme, interest only @ 6% p.a. can be awarded on the amounts deposited with respect to the delayed period. Thus on account of the fact that when a person applies for registration under a Scheme floated by the Rajasthan Housing Board, he is bound to the terms of that scheme. However, this is one aspect of the matter.

OTHER more important aspect is that on account of the delay on the part of the Housing Board in not making allotment within assured period of two years, the registered applicant suffers economic loss which is solely on account of negligence on the part of the Housing Board. This case is an instance in which the complainant has suffered economic loss solely on account of the negligence of the Rajasthan Housing Board at Bhilwara. The Housing Board was bound to issue reservation letter to the complainant in the third quarter of the year, 1990 and to allot to the complainant an HIG category house latest by 26.12.1992. Instead of that, the Housing Board issued the reservation letter only on 12.5.1992 and allotted the house on 30.4.1993. Thus there was a delay of four months in the allotment of the house. It may here be mentioned that there is a redeeming feature in this case. Generally, the Rajasthan Housing Board issues the allotment letter only after all the four instalments mentioned in the reservation letter are deposited. The payment of four instalments is divided in this manner that the payment of all the instalments is made within about 18 months. That is the general practice of the Rajasthan Housing Board. However, in the present case, as already mentioned that the reservation letter was issued on 12.5.1992 and by 12.11.1992 only two instalments were to be deposited. The remaining two installments were to be deposited on 12.5.1992 and by 12.11.1992. Before the third and fourth instalments became due, the Rajasthan Housing Board made allotment of the house on 30.4.1993. It is, therefore, clear that after reservation, the Housing Board acted swiftly in alloting the house in order to carry the self-financing scheme to a logical conclusion. This is a redeeming factor in favour of the Housing Board. The opposite parties have already allowed 6% p.a. interest for this delay. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, that the Housing Board allotted to the complainant the house only after 4 months of the expiry of period of two years and before the deposit of all the four instalments, the complainant is only entitled the nominal compensation as there was no abnormal delay in allotment of the house.

AS regards costing, it has time and again be held by the Supreme Court as well as the National Commission that Consumer Forum cannot go into the question of costing. Before parting with this order, we will deprecate the practice on behalf of the complainant that for a petty amount of loss which they suffer, they come before the State Commission for filing complaints when complaints for such petty compensation could have been filed in District Forum. This tendency to exaggerate the amount of compensation in order to file the complaint before the State Commission had been deprecated time and again by the National Commission as well as this State Commission. Consequently, we only partly allow this complaint and award to the complainant a token compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only. The remaining claim is dismissed. Complaint partly allowed.