D.D.BANSAL vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, JYOTI NAGAR

BY this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) the complainant appellant questions the legality and correctness of the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur on 4.8.1990 in Complaint Case No. 823/1989. Facts leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The complainant is the power-of-Attorney holder of one Shri Saiyad Khan. The complaint was filed by him as power of attorney holder. The appeal has also been filed in that capacity. Shri Saiyad Khan- was allotted House No. 13/381, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. It has been stated by the complainant that vide challan No. R. 73/85-86 dated 24.9.1973, he deposited a sum of Rs. 100/- for registration for the allotment of the house. Thereafter for change of category of income, he deposited Rs. 1,700/- on 31.8.1981 and Rs. 1,200/-on 16.12.1982. A house- under MIG (A) Income Group was reserved for him. He was told that house No. 13/381 Malviya Nagar is going to be allotted to him but he did not receive the allotment letter. He went to the office of the RHB several times but he was told that his file is not traceable. After two years he was told by the circle employees that the file has been traced out but the house will be allotted to him at the new rates. The complainant at that time is said to have told that it was the mistake of the RHB and why should be penalised. He was threatened that his allotment would be cancelled. The complainant made entreaties with folded hands. He was told that the allotment letter is going to be sent to him. However, vide letter No. 7899 dated 7.12.1988 order for cancellation was sent. The complainant pursued the matter. According to the complainant, he received the allotment letter on 25.8.1989 in which interest on interest on the seed money charged was mentioned and the house was allotted according to the new rates. The monthly installment fixed was of Rs. 780/- though according to the complainant on the old rates the monthly interest should have been on Rs. 462/-. The complainant has also stated that the house was in a dilapidated condition, the inspection of which was given to Shri T.G. Sharma and Shri Morani, Jr. Engineer. The complainant sent various letters but nothing was done. The complainant got repaired the house but still it is defective. He has mentioned four defects at page 2 of the complaint. He, therefore, filed the complaint praying (1) that the opposite party may be directed to realise the cost of the house according to the old rates and monthly instalments may also be fixed at Rs. 462/- per month. Interest on the seed money may be waived (2) that order for repairing the house may be passed (3) that amount spent by the complainant in repairing the house may be ordered to be paid by the opposite party and (4) that compensation and costs may be awarded.

THIS complaint was filed before the District Forum, and it was presented before it on 23.11.1989. The complainant submitted an application dated 24.3.1990 before the District Forum stating the various grounds for granting the reliefs. Alongwith that, he submitted the allotment-cum-possession letter of Shri Ismail Khan, complainant''s allotment-cum-possession letter dated 10.8.1989 and the receipts of Devlal Sharma dated 6.10.1989 and 7.11.1989 to show that a sums of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- were paid in respect of the repairs. The opposite party did not file any reply to the complaint despite affording opportunity to it. The District Forum heard the arguments and dismissed the complaint. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent before us though power on behalf of the respondent was filed on 29.1.1991. We heard the arguments of Mr. T.D. Bansal, power of attorney holder of Shri. Saiyed Khan. We considered the record in the light of the submissions made by him and also the order appealed against. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the cost of House No. 13/381 should be charged from the complainant amounting to Rs. 40,725/- and the monthly instalment of Rs. 462/- may be fixed for 144 months. The interest of Rs. 2,352/- charged by the opposite party-respondent on the seed money is unreasonable and a direction for its refund should be issued. An order for paying the repair charges amounting to Rs. 5,100/-, (Rs. 2,000/- plus Rs. 3,100/-) may be passed and that compensation for mental and physical injury amounting to Rs. 10,000/- should be awarded to the complainant-appellant.

The District Forum held (1) that the opposite party had authority to increase the cost of the house on the ground of increase in the cost of material (2) that it was the look out of the complainant to have seen whether the house is complete in all respects and he should have pointed out the defects at the time when he took possession and (3) that the Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to order for the cost of the repairs under the Act to the complainant.

THE provisions of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 and the Housing Board Disposal of Property Regulations 1970 were considered in detail by us in Shri Kanhaiyalal Mathur v. Rajasthan Housing Board, reported in RLT-90 Part III page 31 which was affirmed by the National Commission. Subsequently the principles laid down therein were followed in various cases. THE State Commission observed as under:- "In Jyoti Prakash v. THE Rajasthan Housing Board [1979 WLN (UC) 101], it has been held that the Registration Schemes and the Allotment Schemes are distinguishable and no right of allotment of house is conferred on any applicants registered under the Registration Scheme and they cannot challenge the scheme. It was held in 1985 WLN (UC) 266, by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that the Board is competent to increase the price beyond ceiling in certain circumstances and one is, increase in the cost of construction. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/86 Deep Chand v. Rajasthan Housing Board, decided on 24.9.1986, the Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979 was considered. It was held that the reservation is after only allotment and registration and reservations cannot be equated. No right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of the house by Housing Board Scheme, July September, 1973."

THE National Commission while affirming the order made the following weighty observations in I (1991) CPJ 37. "As has been pointed out by the State Commission the allotment Scheme has to be distinguished from the registration Scheme and no right of allotment to a house is conferred on any applicant by mere registration under a registration Scheme. Registration and reservation of allotment cannot be equated and reservation of accommodation follows allotment. Consequently, the State Commission has rightly observed that no right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of a house by the Housing Board on registration of the appellant in 1973"

No material has been placed on record by the complainant to show that the allotment which was made to him vide allotment-cum-possession letter dated 10.8.1989 was considerably delayed allotment because of the negligence on the part of the opposite party or on account of the fraud of the Board, or that there was shortcoming in rendering the service by it. Mr. D.D. Bansal did not succeed in satisfying us that there is any mistake in calculating the amount and other payable charges mentioned in the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 10.8.89. He could not point out that the amounts mentioned in the allotment-cum-possession letter are not in accordance with the Regulations. It is settled that the complainant has no vested right so as to insist that he should be allotted a house at the then prevailing cost when his name was registered. Interest on seed money has been charged in accordance with the provisions contained in the Regulations. There is nothing on record to show that the house had any defects at the time when it was allotted to him and even if such defects were there they should have been pointed out to the engineer concerned at the time of taking possession. Usually the possession of the house is delivered when the house is complete in all respects. In the absence of the material that the house had certain defects, the averment of the complainant cannot be accepted. The instalments were fixed in accordance with the Regulations. It may be mentioned that in the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 10.8.1989 which was issued after the cancellation of the previous allotment-cum-possession letter dated 21.8.1985, there is condition No. 13 which is as under:- "MAKAN PURNETAY TAYAR HAI, IS KA BABJUD NIRMAN MA KOI KAMI RAHI GAYI HAI TO US KA LEYA SUMBHANDIT STHANIK. STHAL ABHIYANTA, RAJASTHAN AWASHSAN BOARD SA SUMPARK KARAY KA CHOTIKARMIYO KA LEYA MAKAN KA KABJA LANA MA DERI NA KI JAY A."

ACCORDING to the condition if there is any deficiency in the construction of the house, it was the duty of the complainant to have contacted the Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board for it and if there are minor deficiencies then delay should not be done in taking the possession of the house. The amounts spent by the complainant on the repairs of the house as alleged and are evidenced by the receipts dated 6.10.1989 and 7.11.1989 cannot be awarded for more than one reason. These receipts do not mention as to when the repairs were affected and under what circumstances the repairs were affected. These receipts have not been proved at all by any affidavit or otherwise and further order for the payment of the amounts spent by the complainant on the repairs of the house cannot be granted under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. The claim for compensation also stands unsubstantiated as no material has been placed on record by the complainant that on account of the negligence of the opposite party he has suffered injury or loss. Having carefully considered the record as it stands and the order under appeal we are not in a position to take a view different from the one taken by the District Forum. We affirm the order dated 4.8.1990 passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 823/1989. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. As the respondent has not appeared, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.