JASPAL SINGH vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan in Complaint No. 124/93.

BEFORE the State Commission, it was contended by the complainant that complainant was allotted a house in Hiran Magri Scheme, Udaipur by allotment letter dated 31.3.1990. This allotment was made on hire purchase basis. House measuring 324 sq. metres was constructed on the said plot. Complainant was asked to pay in all Rs. 3,06,784.68 ps. The complainant has only deposited Rs. 1,22,687/-. The possession of the house was delivered on 16.11.199. At the time of delivery of the house, an inventory was taken. It is contended by the complainant that at the time of taking possession, he had found certain deficiencies and some breakage, therefore, he had written a letter dated 16.11.1990 to the Project Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board. It is also alleged that before delivery of possession, the house was used as an office of the Assistant Engineer of the Rajasthan Housing Board and, therefore, it was unfair trade practice. It was also contended that there was no sewer line, no plantation of trees, no primary or higher secondary school building, no health centre building and no community centre. Therefore, there was deficiency in service. He has claimed that actual cost of the house be reduced and the opposite party Housing Board be directed to execute conveyance deed of the house in favour of the complainant. The opposite party has pointed out that despite allotment letter dated 31.3.1990, complainant came to take possession only on 16.11.1990. For more than 2 years, complainant remained silent and never gave any notice regarding any shortage and breakage nor against the cost of the house. Thus the complainant was not paying the hire-purchase charges. He had filed this frivolous complaint.

The State Commission after considering the evidence brought on record arrived at the conclusion- (a) that the complainant has given an unqualified certificate that there was no deficiency in the tenements and the complainant was not to have any complaint in future. Therefore, complainant utterly failed to establish that there existed any shortage or breakage in the house; (b) negatived the contention that there was unfair trade practice on the alleged ground that the house was used for office by the Assistant Engineer; and (c) that no construction of residential houses can be made on lands which were reserved in a housing scheme for schools, dispensary, hospital, community centre, etc. and, therefore, it was an unfair trade practice for this it awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant. That order is challenged by the complainant by filing this appeal.

AS it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that appellant was not paying the hire-purchase charges, on 21.1.2004 the following order was passed: "Application for restoration is allowed. On 16.11.1990, the appellant has taken possession of the house allotted to him by the Rajasthan Housing Board. It is pointed out by the Counsel for the respondent that at present also, the appellant is in possession and using the same and yet he is not paying the instalments, which are required to be paid as the house was allotted to the appellant on hire purchase scheme. The appellant who is present before this Commission states that he would pay the said amount within a period of three months. He makes it clear that the said payment would be made without any interest as demanded by the Housing Board."

Despite the aforesaid order passed by this Commission and the statement made by the appellant, he has failed to deposit the amount due and payable to the Housing Board as per hire purchase scheme. On this ground itself, in our view, the appeal is required to be dismissed because the appellant is in possession of the house since November, 1990 and is not paying the instalments payable under the scheme.

SECONDLY, for fixation of the cost of construction of the house it has been repeatedly held that Consumer Forum cannot interfere with the same. Thirdly, as found by the State Commission, the complainant has given a certificate to the effect that there is no deficiency in the tenement. He has not raised any objection for more than two years for shortage or breakage in the premises. Therefore, that grievance is also without any substance. For lack of common facilities for all allottees of the houses under the scheme, such as lack of sewage line, lack of plantation, lack of primary school, lack of health centre building and lack of community centre near the house, it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the Housing Board is responsible for the same. It depends upon the funds made available by the Urban Improvement Trust. In any case for this deficiency, the State Commission has awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant and no further direction is required to be given at the instance of the appellant who has failed to pay due instalments under the hire purchase scheme.

HENCE, there is no substance in this appeal and is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.