DINESH CHANDRA GOSWAMI vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THE complainant Shri Dinesh Chandra Goswami has filed this complaint under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the Rajasthan Housing Board (opposite party) on 24.8.90 praying for the reliefs mentioned in para 5 of the complaint. It was alleged by the complainant that in the year 1973 the Board invited applications under the General Registration Scheme July- September, 1973 for registration of the applicants intending to purchase houses built by it. It was stated therein that efforts will be made by the Board to allot houses to the registered applicants within l years to 3 years. THE complainant submitted application No. 2926 dated 25.9.73 which was registered under certificate No. 24139 dated 5.4.74 for a built house in Jaipur of 30'' X 60'' (200 sqr. yds.) size (comprising of 2 Bedrooms, 1 Drawing Room, Kitchen, Verandah, Bathroom, Stairs and open space). A letter No. 1566 dated 7.11.84 was issued to the complainant by the Board which has been submitted as enclosure ''C'' In that letter the complainant has stated that : - (i) It was issued as late as in November 1984 i.e. after more than 11 years of his registration, which, ought to have been issued in October, 76. (ii) It was for a house only of 8 X 15 meters (145.2 sqr. yds.) size (comprising only of 2 rooms, kitchen, Verandah, Bathroom, no third room, no stairs, open space). (iii) In it an increased sale price including an extra cost of Rs. 5,800/- was mentioned. (iv) It was in revision of its earlier wrong letter which was issued without ascertaining from the record that the case was of allotment on outright payment basis and not on hire purchase basis; and (v) It was for allotment for a sale price of Rs. 37,690/- (i.e. Rs. 8,040/- for plot of land + Rs. 23,850/- for construction + Rs. 5,800/- extra cost) and a few other charges.

IT was stated by the complainant that the Board notified a scheme i.e. Allotment Scheme, 1975 in which the price of the house of 25'' X 50'' size was shown as Rs. 25,300/- but the price actually charged by the Board from the complainant was Rs. 12,390/- higher than the price shown in the General Registration Scheme, 1973. The scheme did not provide for the varied number of stages for allotment of a house e.g. reservation, assignment of number, allotment and handing over possession etc. as was done later on. The complainant has also stated in the complaint that during the period of the aforesaid express promise, the State Government employees had the facility of getting the ORS price of the houses in lumpsum or at once, but the Board did not perform its promise and so the employees were compelled to get the ORS price in instalments, the minimum period of which comes to 5 years. This enlargement affected the entitlement and claim of the complainant adversely, making him liable to pay interest and penal interest to the Board as well as an increased rate of interest to the State Government. IT is said that after 3 years of the period of its aforesaid promise, the Board invited applications for inclusion of names of the registered applicants in Draw 79/80 for lottery No. 1 in May, 1979 for the houses built and being built by it stating in the Scheme that the houses are likely to be constructed and completed within a period of 12 to 15 months. The total approximate price of the house of 8 X 15 meter size was shown as Rs. 27,500/- which was inclusive of the sum of Rs. 6,600/- already charged or being charged by it as registration and seed money. The Board sent letter No. 7052 dated 10.8.79 in regard to the complainant''s success in the Reservation Scheme, 1979-80 Lottery No. 1 mentioning the price of the house reserved for the complainant as Rs. 27,500/-. According to the complainant this shows that the Board has charged a sum of Rs. 10,190/- in excess of the price chargeable by it. The complainant has averred that while issuing a No Objection Certificate vice No. 8683 dated Aug. 22,1979 that Board then stated that the possession will be given on receiving the disposal price of Rs. 32,500/-approximately, including Rs. 3,000/- already charged as registration money. Subsequently the Board published a notification for allotting house number to those applicants who had been registered by it for whom houses were reserved under the 1979 Lottery and who had deposited seed money by Feb. 10, 1981. As the complainant had already deposited the seed money well in advance in November, 1979 and February, 1980 he should have been allotted the house much earlier and at a much lesser price. The complainant has stated that besides the fulfilment of the terms he had already deposited the seed money in advance in November, 1979 and February, 1980 on the basis of which the house should have been allotted to him much earlier and at a much lesser price. But the allotment although notified by the Board in favour of the complainant, was only a paper allotment, because the actual allotment of the house which was to be made by it between 6/ 80 and 9/80 was delayed by it for a further period of about 4 years. The complainant thereafter wrote letter dated 18.8.83 to his employer to discontinue further payments to the Board. Subsequently letter No. 1913 dated July 17, 1984 making a wrong allotment on hire purchase basis without going through its own record and without ascertaining that the application of the complainant was for purchase of a house on out right basis. The Board subsequently corrected the mistake and simultaneously imposing its liability on the complainant issued letter No. 1566 dated 7.11.84 informing that the allotment had been made on 19.2.82 by the Allotment Committee on outright payment basis. This clearly meant that the Board did not disclose the decision made by its Allotment Committee in favour of the complainant, for more than 2 years and deprived him of his right to be informed in time of the decision made in his favour as also to represent his case in case of any grievance. The complainant has stated that possession letter was issued by the Board without any reference to the deposits already received by it in addition to those received as registration and seed money.

The complainant has vide enclosure ''E'' given complete information of all the deposits made from time to time by the complainant and the Government Secretariat with the Board. He has given particulars in para(n) of the complaint. The complainant has further alleged that the accounts in respect of the complainant have not been properly reconciled by the Board and the failure to comply with the Government directions as well as to make response to the request or claims of the public or the consumers, is in itself an example of its high handedness and flouting of the directions of its superiors. The complainant wanted the details of the calculation, in the absence of which final settlement of the dues, if any, and necessary formalities in regard to the issue of No Dues Certificate as also of registration etc. in favour of the complainant could not be made were being delayed unnecessarily. Allegations of breach of contract was made in para (q) of the complaint. Para (r) of the complaint reads as follows : "(r) that as a result of the failure of the Board to allot a house to the complainant within the period of its express promise, the terms and conditions which were prevalent during that period and which were arbitrarily changed for no fault of the complainant including other similar applicants of the 1973 Scheme, for his entitlement and getting of the House building advance etc. from his employer, were adversely affected and consequently he was compelled to get the said advance in six installments, covering a lengthy period of 8 years from 1981 to 1988, which he would otherwise have got much earlier and in one lumpsum 12 to 15 years heretofore, had the Board made the allotment in time i.e. within the period of its aforesaid express promise."

After mentioning the grievances in para 4 of the complaint, the complaint was filed for the reliefs adverted hereinabove.

THE opposite party filed the version of the case on 7.1.91 opposing the complaint and raising objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. Most of the objections raised by the opposite party shall be dealt with hereunder. THE complainant did not file any affidavit in support of the complaint. THE opposite party also did not file any affidavit in support of the version. THE complainant submitted a written reply on 14.3.91 which is said to be written arguments. Its copy was delivered to the learned Counsel for the opposite party who submitted written arguments in reply. As the original arguments submitted by the opposite party were not traced out, its copy was taken on record on 8.4.91. It is clear that besides the pleadings of the parties and the documents which the complainant has submitted, there is no other evidence on record. THE complainant has not filed any affidavit or produced any evidence by examining the witnesses on oath in support of the complaint. THE reply submitted by the complainant shows that the complainant has equated initial registration of the house with the allotment. THE National Commission in Kanhayalal Mathur v. Rajasthan Housing Board while affirming the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan reported in I (1991) CPJ 37 (NC) has dealt with this aspect and has observed as follows : "As has been pointed out by the State Commission the allotment scheme has to be distinguished from the registration scheme and 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. In the various draws made under the registration allotment schemes introduced from time to time the name of the appellant did not figure in the draws made for allotment. THEre was no contractual obligation on the part of the Board to allot a house to the Appellant."

It is clear from the record that the complainant had opted for LIG house, which was later on changed into HIG higher purchase and thereafter in order to avail certain facilities he shifted to outright sale, for which none-else than the complainant himself is to be blamed. The possession of the allotted house was obtained by the complainant on 15.11.84. The complaint was filed with regard to the various defects in the house and compensation on 24.8.90. Some of the points raised by the complainant have been dealt with by the State Commission in various cases. Reference may be made to Surendra Kumar Saxena v. Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board (Complaint Case No. 11 of 1990 decided on 24.1.91). It was observed therein as under : "In Jyoti Prakash v. The Rajasthan Housing Board [1979 WLN (UC) 101], it was 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. The Rajasthan High Court in 1985 WLN (UC) 266 ruled 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. 1625/85-Deepchand v. Rajasthan Housing Board, decided on 24.9.86, the Housing Board Registration Scheme 1979 was considered. It was held that reservation is after allotment and registration and reservation cannot be equated. It is clear from the above decisions that no right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of the House under the Scheme of 1982."

Section 28 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 ("the Act of 1970") provides for housing schemes. The Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970 ("the Regulations") were framed, which apply generally to the schemes in which the properties created therein are to be disposed of by way of sale or hire-purchase and amongst others, the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme. The terms and conditions of the disposal of property are contained in Chapter II of the Regulations. Chapter III thereof provides the procedure for disposal of property. Chapter IV of the Regulations is with respect to hire purchase, tenancy and transfer of ownership. Regulation VI is for fixation of price. Eligibility for allotment is dealt with by Regulation VII. Regulation IX is with respect to manner of payment of disposal price. Regulation XXII is in respect of the registration. Regulation 24 is in respect of registration deposit etc. Regulation 27 is important. It is as under : "27. Allotment of houses. (i) The Board shall reserve/allot a house to a registered applicant on the basis of availability of tenements/houses; (ii) When the number of tenements/houses is more than the number of applicants, all persons will be reserved a house without any draw; (iii) Where the number of applicants is more and the number of tenements/houses is less, reservation will be made by draw of lots. For this the Board will reserve tenements/houses according to the yearwise priority; (iv) Allotment of tenement/house number to a successful registered applicant shall be given by draw of lots; (v) Mode of payment as indicated in the registration form shall be treated as final." Regulation 29 is with respect to draw of lots. Regulation 30 deals with entry of final list of allottees/hirers in a register. Execution of allotment is dealt with in Regulation 35. Regulation 37 provides for handing over of possession of property."

NO material has been placed on record by the complainant to show that the allotment was considerably delayed because of the negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant could not succeed in satisfying us that there is any mistake in calculating the value of the house. He also could not satisfy us that the amount mentioned in the allotment letter was not in accordance with the Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970 ("the Regulations"). The complainant has no right to insist that he should be allotted the house at the then prevailing cost when his name was registered under the scheme, whatever provided under the scheme regarding area of the house and apartments were merely indications. The area of the house and the apartments to be constructed depend on the availability of the land meant for the purpose. Merely on the basis of the complaint not even supported by affidavit, it is difficult for us to hold that there was any deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to the house as per specification of the scheme. The complainant has claimed compensation and interest by way of compensation particularly for the delay caused in the allotment of the house. Compensation can be awarded under Sec. 14(1)(d) of the Act for the loss or injury suffered by the complainant on account of the negligence of the opposite party. The complainant has not substantiated his claim for compensation for as held above in the facts and circumstances of the case no delay can be attributed to the opposite party. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the National Commission in this regard in various cases we are of opinion that compensation as claimed cannot be awarded. The complaint shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.