H.P.ROY vs Government Of Bihar

THIS complaint has been filed by the complainant, Shri H.P. Roy alleging deficiencies in service, on the part of O.P. Government of Bihar & Ors. for not allotting the house in which he was living as a tenant to him under Hire Purchase Scheme.

THE facts of the case as per complaint are that the complainant was an employee of M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. at Jamshedpur, Bihar where the employer had taken several houses on rent from the Bihar State Housing Board (BSHB) since, 1969. THE complainant was occupying one of them bearing No. M-24. Upon BSHB floating a scheme for permanent scheme of rental house in 1976, the complainant registered himself after paying Registration fee of Rs. 50/-. Formal application was made in July, 1980. All the formalities were completed but the house was not allotted in his favour in spite of his having deposited Rs. 6,500/- in August, 1980 in the account of BSHB. According to complainant, he came to know (no time frame) that the house M-24 is going to be allotted to one Executive Engineer of BSHB, in the light of which the complainant and his General Manager met the Minister for Housing, Bihar on 19th August, 1980. THE Hon''ble Minister assured them to settle the matter through another meeting. It is his case that some other similarly situated colleagues were allotted the house in which they were living but not him. This is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents. He did whatever he could but to no avail. For prosecuting the matter in good faith he was threatened and he had to leave Jamshedpur. After seeing an advertisement for a house in Calcutta for which he applied, got the allotment, and moved to this house in 1993. He had to pay Rs. 8,39,628/- for this. Had the house been allotted in Jamshedpur, it would have costed around Rs. 50,000/- only. THE complainant issued notice on May, 1996 for refund of earnest money amounting to Rs. 6,500/- with interest @ 18% but received no reply. It is in these circumstances that the complaint was filed with a prayer to direct the respondent to pay him Rs. 30,65,473/- comprising Rs. 20,06,473 towards actual loss and Rs. 10.59 lakhs towards compensation, harassment and mental agony.

No reply was filed by the respondent in spite of notice. Cost imposed has also not been paid and was absent on the last date of hearing, hence was proceeded ex parte.

IT is argued by the complainant himself that great injustice has been done to him by not allotting House No. M-24, in which he had been living since 1969, for which he applied for allotment in 1980 as per Scheme of Bihar State Housing Board. He completed all the formalities i.e. deposited Rs. 6,500/-, got a no-objection certificate from the employer even then non-allotment of House No. M-24-while his other colleagues in similar circumstances were allotted the house they were living in-amounts to a deficiency in service. He argued that a meeting took place between the Minister for Housing in which officials of BSHB including their Law Officer were present. The Minister over-ruled all the objections raised by BSHB officials. Yet, the house was not allotted. He issued notices but were of no avail. He is an old man and suffers from several ailments but BSHB had no sympathy for a genuine person. Finally he had to settle in Calcutta in a much smaller house for which he had to pay a much higher price. The complaint is genuine, hence his complaint be allowed in full with costs. We have seen the material brought on record and also filed along with written arguments as well as heard arguments. What we see is that the cause of action arose in July, 1980 when he for the first time applied for a house, M-240 in a prescribed form. The meeting with the Minister took place in August, 1980. Almost all the correspondence - reminders, application, etc. relate to the year, 1980 and a representation to Minister in March, 1981. The next letter written by the complainant is in July, 1984 for refund of money as perhaps by that time he had been allotted a house in Salt Lake, Calcutta in 1983. Then there is a notice in August, 1996 demanding a sum of Rs. 19.59 lakhs and again a notice in January, 1997 demanding compensation of Rs. 24,24,942/-. In our view the cause of action at best could be said to have arisen in 1982 i.e. two years after his applying for a house in July, 1980. Filing complaint in 1997 under no circumstances can be said to be within the timelimit both pre and post-amended of CPA in June, 1993. No amount of liberal interpretation can bring this application within the timelimit prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act as was deemed to be applicable under CPA before its amendment as well as after the amendment of CPA in June, 1993 fixing a timelimit of two years from the cause of action for filing a complaint. On merits also, we see that the case of the complainant is that Bihar Government announced a scheme for permanent allotment of rental houses to the occupants on Hire Purchase Scheme. It is also stated that some of his similarly situated colleagues were allotted the house they were living in. At no stage copy of the alleged Announcement/Scheme, terms and conditions have been brought on record to enable us to examine the case in that light. Nor for that matter any affidavit/details have been brought on record, that similarly situated colleagues were allotted houses. Even though the O.Ps. were proceeded ex parte, yet the complainant had to prove his case. In the absence of any material referred to above, it is not possible for us to accept the above contentions of the complainant. There is nothing on record about any outcome of the meeting of the complainant with the Minister for Housing. There is no allotment of any house whatsoever. To this extent, we see no deficiency.

FROM record, we also see that as early as July, 1984 the complainant requests for refund of the deposited amount, which is reiterated in his letter of May, 1996. Subsequently, notices have been issued demanding huge amounts but in our view that has no co-relation with the decision on the subject. We find Bihar State Housing Board deficient at least on one point and that is its absolute silence on the request for refund of deposited amount. No house could be allotted to him can be overlooked but not the prayer for refund of his own deposited amount. Keeping in view our own order in Huda & Ors. v. Darsh Kumar, I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC)=2001 CCC 455 (NS) (Revision Petition No. 1197 of 1998) we direct that the O.P., Bihar State Housing Board to refund Rs. 6,500/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the date of payment, which must be done within six weeks of this order. Complaint is allowed only to the extent. Cost fixed at Rs. 5,000/- to be payable by the respondent, Housing Board to the complainant. Complaint allowed.