GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD vs JAYSHRIBEN J.PATEL

BOTH these appeals arise out of the order of Rajkot District Forum in complaint No. 311/91 in which the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed that the complainant be paid Rs. 5,000/- as refund of deposit with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation and Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation and Rs. 500/- by way of cost.

BOTH the parties, being aggrieved with this order have filed these appeals. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment they are disposed of by this common judgment. Jayashriben, the original complainant has filed a complainant alleging that the Gujarat Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) published an advertisement in the daily newspaper Phulchhab on 22.8.1982 for the purpose of cheap and good house to the needy people in big cities promising to give these houses within a period of 5 years. The complainant therefore deposited Rs. 5,000/ - but she has not been given any house till the date of the complaint and has also not been paid the interest @ 5% as promised. The priority number of the complainant was admittedly 501. She had written several letters but no satisfactory reply was given. Under the scheme the houses were to be given within 5 years and the purchaser had been given option of choice for three times regarding location. "The District Forum after taking the evidence and hearing the arguments of both the parties and ther advocates arrived at a conclusion that the complainant had deposited Rs. 5,000/- forgetting house in the MIG category and her Sr. No. was 501. The complainant was given an option on 25.6.87 for the allotment of flat near Milk Dairy but since the locality was not convenient she did not return the form after completing the same. Thereafter again the complainant was given an option of a flat. The complainant had selected the house in the locality known as Kalavad road but that demand has not been considered by the Board. The complainant has, therefore, alleged that the 28 flats at Kalavad Road were prepared under the MIG scheme but with a view to earn more profits, these 28 flats constructed for the benefit of middle income group were converted into High Income Group scheme but the Board which is not binding to the complainant and she should be allotted the quarter out of these 28 flats which are now converted to High Income Group at the price of MIG. The complainant has, therefore, demanded that she may be allotted a flat out of these 28 flats now designated for HIG on Amin Marg at the price of MIG or in the alternative the complainant be awarded the refund of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by her with interest @ 18% and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental shock and suffering and cost of the complaint.

There is no dispute that the complainant had deposited Rs. 5,000/- before 10 years i.e. on 26.10.1982. The opposite party has alleged to have offered the complainant three times the houses constructed by the Board but the same was not replied by the complainant and the house which was constructed near the dairy land was expressedly rejected by the complainant and hence, according to the opposite party the complainant was not entitled to get any relief.

IN para 17 the District Forum has observed that there was evidence on record that the Board has constructed the houses near Milk Dairy, Kalavad Road and a scheme for construction of houses was going on near Mota Mava and that 28 flats were constructed on Kalavad Road, Amin Marg which wer originally meant for Medium INcome, Group but subsequently they were converted into Higher INcome Group. The price of these flats were increased to Rs. 2,25,000/- and, therefore, the Board transferred those houses from MIG to HIG in 1992. According to the District Forum the Board had no authority to behave arbitrarily and capriciously when originally the scheme was proposed for MIG by the Board it cannot convert to Higher INcome Group scheme merely because the locality is good with a view to fetch more money. At the same time the District Forum has observed that the complainant had applied for the house in the year 1982 and she was offered flats at three different times at the same locality and the locality of quarters constructed on Amin Marg being good, the quarters meant for medium INcome group scheme were converted into Higher income Group scheme, and it is beyond the authorities, arbitrary and capricious and according to the District Forum this amounted to deficiency in service by the opposite party. However, the District Forum came to the conclusion that it was not possible for them to allot the house from the said scheme of 28 houses at Amin Marg and, therefore, they passed the decree for return of the amount with compensation and cost. We have considered the arguments of both the parties. The complainant is insisting upon the delivery of the house at Amin Marg at the cost which can be fixed for the MIG whereas the Board has challenged the decision regarding compensation and higher interest which according to them can not be awarded by the District Forum. We have considered the arguments of both the parties and we also find that option required to be given to the complainant was to be given in three different localities and not in the same locality. The scheme which was meant for MIG was converted into HIG because of the inflation of price but that is bound to happen if the Board executes the scheme after 10 years. We are, therefore, also of the opinion that not giving three chances in three different localities and converting the MIG scheme into HIG scheme amount to deficiency in service. Even after 10 years the Board is not in a position to offer the house to the complainant after giving three chances in three different localities. The Board is, therefore, liable to the damages for the deficiency in services. Since the District Forum has awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and 15% interest on the deposit amount it appears to us to be quite reasonable and proper, though according to our opinion this would not also fully compensate the complainant. We do not propose to change this order in absence of other evidence regarding the damages. We do not find any error committed by the District Forum so as to invite our interference. Both the appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER Both the appeals are dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.