HOUSING COMMISSIONER, U.P. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs PRAKASH CHANDRA TRIVEDI

THIS appeal has been filed by the U.P. Housing and Development Board, Lucknow against the judgment and order dated 22.7.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 1155/93.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows. The complainant Prakash Chandra Trivedi in response to a scheme of housing floated by U.P. Housing and Development Board entitled as Self Financing Scheme 91C, applied for a house under the Self Financing Scheme in Vikas Nagar, Lucknow. He deposited the registration money of Rs. 30,000/- on 7.12.1991 with the opposite party, the Housing Board. Under this scheme, it was provided by the Board that the houses will be allotted within six months of registration but the opposite party did not make allotment for 17 months. The complainant, therefore, applied for return of the amount deposited by him on 23.7.1993. The opposite party deducted 20% of the amount and issued a cheque of Rs. 24,000/- which was received by the complainant on 22.6.1993. The complainant has alleged that the deduction made is illegal and he claimed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and interest on the total amount deposited by him. Initially the U.P. Housing and Development Board did not appear in the case before the District Consumer Forum and the case was ordered to proceed ex parte against them. They made an application before the Forum on 22.11.1996 requesting for recall of the ex parte order and admit their written statement. This request of the Housing Board was rejected by the District Consumer Forum on 6.1.1997 with the direction to return the written statement to opposite party.

The District Consumer Forum after hearing the case, came to the conclusion that the opposite party had undertaken to make the allotment order within six months but did not issue the allotment order for 17 months. The Forum, therefore, found that the opposite party was guilty of not keeping to its own promise. The complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 6,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. The compensation and damages @ 12% on the deposited amount of Rs. 30,000/- was also allowed to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 300/- as cost was also awarded to complainant.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow, the Housing Commissioner, U.P. Housing and Development Board has came up in appeal. In the memo of appeal, it was stated that the complainant had concealed the facts before the District Consumer Forum that he had not deposited the due instalments, although in accordance with the order dated 31.8.1992, he had to deposit six instalments of Rs. 40,000/- each on 30.9.1992, 30.12.1992 and 30.3.1993. The complainant had asked for refund of his initially deposited amount on 23.4.1993. Under these circumstances, the registration of the complainant was cancelled and as per rule of the scheme 20% deduction was made. It was also stated that the District Consumer Forum heard the case ex parte and rejected the appellant''s prayer that their written statement may be taken on record. The appellant''s prayer for setting aside the ex parte order was also rejected on 6.1.1997. The complaint was wrongly allowed by the District Consumer Forum because Rule 7(IV) of the scheme provides that interest will not be payable on the registration amount and if the registration amount is withdrawn then 20% amount will be deducted and registration will be cancelled. It was also stated on behalf of the appellant that as far as the case of refund is concerned, the same is not a consumer dispute. The District Consumer Forum should have considered the written statement/reply of the opposite party. The appellant''s action of returning the amount of Rs. 24,000/- after deducting Rs. 6,000/- were justified in view of the rules framed for the scheme because the complainant did not deposit the instalments. We have gone through the evidence on record. We have also heard Counsel for the appellant and the respondent who was present in person. The brochure of the scheme known as Self Financing Scheme 91C, clearly laid down that the registration for the scheme started on 28.10.1991. It is an admitted fact that the complainant deposited the registration amount of Rs. 30,000/- on 7.12.1991. The brochure also lays down that the allotment of the self financing housing scheme will be made within six months from the last date of registration. Alongwith the memo of appeal, a letter of the Assistant Housing Commissioner dated 31.8.1992 has been annexed wherein the complainant has been asked to deposit six instalments of Rs. 40,000/- each but the said letter is not an allotment letter. It is simply an acknowledgement of the application for allotment of house. It is also not clearly known whether the complainant was in receipt of this letter because the photocopy of the envelope addressed to the complainant indicates that the receipt of the letter remain unconfirmed. The explicit condition laid down in the brochure was that allotment of the house would be made within six months of the closure of the scheme to the applicant. Presuming that the last date of registration was 31.12.1991 or even beyond, allotment letter should have been given to the complainant. As already held earlier, the Assistant Commissioner''s letter dated 31.7.1992 is not an allotment letter. Even till the month of May, 1993 the allotment letter had not been issued. Therefore, the Housing Board did not act under the rules enacted by itself and was thus deficient in services. In short, it got the registration money deposited and also directed the registered person to deposit instalments but did not issue an allotment letter. Therefore, in given circumstances, there was no alternative for the complainant than to seek refund and the refund was made of the registration amount of Rs. 30,000/- after deducting 20%. Thus, the complainant was not allotted a house and when he wanted the refund of the amount, 20% deduction was made which was a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Housing Board.

THE case of the appellant, Housing Board, is that the District Consumer Forum did not accept the written statement of the opposite party and proceeded with ex parte hearing. THE copy of the written statement which the Housing Board wanted to file before the District Consumer Forum has been annexed with the memo of appeal. THErefore, the Board who is the appellant, was in the knowledge of the order of the District Consumer Forum and should have filed the appeal in time. We are, therefore, not inclined to rely on the affidavit of Imdad Ali Haidri, Estate Management Officer that the condonation of delay in filing the appeal be allowed. THEre is absolutely no valid ground for condoning the delay and appeal is, therefore, clearly time barred. On these grounds, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and hence the judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow are perfectly allright and require no interference. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow are confirmed. The appellant shall also pay cost of appeal of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Let compliance of this order be made within six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.