KANHAIYALAL MATHUR vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS is an appeal under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of December 4,1989 of the State Commission, Rajasthan.

THE reliefs granted by the State Commission to the Complainant-Appellant are set out in pages 21 to 23 of the order of the State Commission. The appellant''s grievances are: that (1) he has not been allotted an independent house within a reasonable time and of the requisite area 1800 Sq. Ft./200 Sq. Yards/ 198 Sq. Mtrs.; (2) the non-allotment of an independent house of requisite area was a breach of the contractual obligation on the part of the Respondent; (3) there has been discrimination against him inasmuch as the Board has allotted independent house to other persons in the same colony and under the same scheme; (4) the Board is guilty of unfair practice inasmuch as certain houses in the Malviya Nagar M.I.G. were lying vacant which could have been allotted to the appellant;and (5) the State Commission has unjustly denied him compensation on the ground that the appellant failed to produce material to substantiate the loss sustained by him.

The question to be considered is whether there has been any deficiency in service rendered by the Respondent to the appellant for which the former is liable to pay compensation to the latter.

THE State Commission has examined the complaint at length as is evident from the elaborate order of the State Commission. From this order as well as from the documents filed before this Commission as also the appeal, it is evident that there has been no deficiency in the matter of allotment of a house/flat to the appellant. As has been pointed out by the State Commission the allotment scheme has to be distinguished from the registration scheme and no 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 true that the name of the appellant did not appear in the 3rd lottery scheme of the year 1980-81. According to the appellant he was shown erroneously as defaulter in the scheme and it appears that, in consequence his name was omitted of the list of eligible applicants. But the Board invited objection to the list of eligible and non-eligible persons and on the notice board of the Housing Board under this scheme. The final list was published after inquiry into the objection and thereafter the lottery was drawn. The appellant has not averred that he had filed objections against the omission of his name from the list of eligible applicants. As such it cannot be maintained by him that the Board had unfairly and unjustly excluded him from the draw.

EVENTUALLY the appellant was allotted a flat in the Malviya Nagar scheme of 44.15 Sq. Mtrs. on outright sale basis against cash payment. The allotment was made with the prior acceptance of the appellant. The only point of deficiency on the part of the Board that was established before the State Commission is the delay in handing over the possession of the house allotted after October 15, 1988 when he had deposited the full amount of the price for the flat. The State Commission has observed, "It (the Housing Board) has failed to hand over the possession of the allotted house after completing it soon after the full price was deposited. In these circumstances, it is clear that the service rendered by the opposite party (Board) to the complainant (now Appellant) suffered from ''deficiency'' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act". The State Commission, however, did not award any compensation to the complainant under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that he had failed to substantiate his claim for compensation which has to be assessed on legal principles and to have a rational relation with the nature and extent of injury, inconvenience or physical or mental suffering caused to the complainant by the action or omission of the opposite party. The State Commission felt that there was no material on record on the basis of which compensation could be awarded to the complainant and hence declined to grant relief by way of compensation.

THIS Commission concurs with the finding of State Commission regarding deficiency in service rendered by the Respondent (State Housing Board) to the complainant but it is of the view that the quantum of compensation in this case is readily quantifiable. THIS will be equal to the amount of interest he has to forego on the amount deposited with the Respondent and for the period for which there has been delay in handing over possession of the allotted house. In fact the State Commission has so quantified the compensation in para 5 of the operative part of the order which is reproduced below: "that until the possession of the aforesaid house after completing is delivered to the complainant, the Opposite-party shall pay interest, on the amount which is lying in deposit with the opposite-party at 12% p.a. from the date of deposit until delivery of possession".

THE points regarding discrimination and unfair practice on the part of the Board were raised belatedly during the hearing by the State Commission. No material was produced to show that these, even if true. would constitute a deficiency in service so long as the Appellant''s rights were not adversely affected. This Commission, therefore, confirms the order of the State Commission and appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.