KRISHAN DAS M.INANI vs SECRETARY RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

A-11 The ten complaints involve identical questions and we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order. We shall notice facts giving rise to complaint Case No. 135/60.

THE complainant filed a complaint on 25.7.90 alleging that in order to obtain a house under Registration Scheme 1979 ("the Scheme") under MIG ''B'' Group, he got himself registered and his registration number was GRS/79/53363. THE complainant after the draw of the lottery of 1980.81(4) gave option for allotting a house MIG ''B''. Alongwith the option form the opposite party Rajasthan Housing Board ("the Board") published certain rules in which measurements of the house, name of the colony, cost, interest, payment time etc. were mentioned. A house measuring 10.5 X 19.5 mts. was allotted to him after the draw of the lottery 1980-81(4). After that a letter for seed money dated 11.3.82 was issued by the Residential Officer. THE complainant is said to have deposited the seed money in two instalments. House No. MPB 124 was allotted on 8.6.83 after drawing of the lottery. His reservation was made according to Condition No. 5.9 of the Booklet 1980-81(4). THE approximate cost mentioned was Rs. 93,520/-. It has been alleged that the Board has issued allotment letters upto April, 1988 according to the determined price. THE letter of allotment was not issued to the complainant upto March 1988. His allotment letter was issued on 31.3.89. Allotment letter 1902 dated 31.3.89 was issued in respect of incomplete house. THE amount demanded was deposited by him though the house was incomplete. It was alleged that the allotment letters which were issued for the years 84-85, 8687,87-88, there was no increase in the costs. THEy contained only the fixed price and no amounts of interest were mentioned. THEre were mistakes in the letter of allotment of House No. MPB 104 issued to the complainant for which the Board was not authorised. On 6.4.88 the board issued the allotment letter in respect of House No. MPB 55. THEre are difference in the two allotment letters. He has given various instances of the allotment letters in the complaint which are discriminatory. In the complaint, it was prayed:- (i) that cost procedure of 1988 should not be made applicable in his (complaint) case as it will be applicable after the allotment of the house made after 1.4.88 and houses was allotted to him on 8.6.83;

(ii) that a direction be issued to the Board to issue an allotment letter in accordance with the allotment letter of MPB 55 dated 6.4.88 as the cost of land @ 70/- per sq. mt. and cost of the house as Rs. 93,520/- and not @l70/-per sq. mt. and cost as Rs: 1,35,750/-; (iii) that all this has caused bodily pain and mental torture to him and members of his family, so compensation may be awarded; (iv) that explanation should be taken from the Board as to why the interest is not paid on the deposited amount and so he may be compensated and that whatever grievances have been raised in the complaint, they may be redressed and justice may be made to him.

Photo stat copy of allotment-cum-possession letter dated 31.3.89, office order dated 7.1.88, photo stat copy of the allotment-cum-possession letter of Vijay and some other documents were submitted.

The opposite party ("the Board") filed the version of the case contesting the complaint. The preliminary objections were raised : (1) that the validity of the Rules cannot be determined by the Redressal Forum under the Act, (2) that the complaint is not triable by the Redressal Forum for the reasons mentioned in preliminary objection No. 2. It was also pleaded that the houses are allotted to the applicants according to the priority and availability on the basis of the draw of the lottery. The cost at the time of the issue of that allotment-cum-possession letter is charged. Reference was made to Registration for allotment procedure. It was submitted that the complainant cannot insist that the house should be allotted at the price at the time of his reservation. It was stated that according to Condition No. 5.9 of the Booklet what was indicated was to provide a house, cost prevailing at the time of allotment is recovered and there is bound to be a difference in regard to the different years at different places. It was submitted that the allotment of the complainant was not prior to 31.3.83 and, therefore, determination was made according to the Rules that were prevalent then. It was submitted that the increase in the cost of the House No. MPB 124 was made in accordance with the Rules. The houses which were completed upto 1.4.88 their possession was given and the new Rules do apply after 1.4.88. The persons who have to obtained possession, they were informed previously. The complainant submitted affidavit of himself. On be half of the Board Shri Rakesh Gupta submitted his affidavit in support of the version of the case. He submitted photo stat copy of the form of acceptance letter dated 15.6.89. On behalf of the complainant seven photo stat copies of the letters issued to seven different persons (allottees) whose names are mentioned in the application were submitted. Learned Counsel for the Board submitted clarifications in respect to the six applicants mentioned therein. Photo stat copies of letters were submitted. In support of that this Rakesh Gupta OIC submitted his affidavit alongwith four forms of acceptance letter in respect of the six applicants. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties were directed to keep the relevant record ready for the perusal of the Commission. Arguments were heard on 26.1.91. On that day the required record was ready with the opposite party which was perused and in respect of that affidavit was filed by Shri Rakesh Gupta. Thereafter dates for dictation of orders were fixed as 31.10.91, and 5.12.91. On 5.12.91 the complaint was adjourned for dictation of orders to 12.2.92. Today, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted photo stat copies alongwith documents showing that the cost mentioned for those applicants was Rs.1,04,060/- in respect of house measuring 11X21 sq. mts. but after 31.3.86 excess amount has been recovered from the applicants. The applications and the documents were shown to the learned Counsel for the Board. He opposed the request for taking these documents on record on the ground that he will have no opportunity to meet them. The Board has specifically come with a case that cost of the complainant''s house was increased in accordance with the Rules and procedure laid down for the purpose. The allotment and possession of the ''complainant is of after March 1988. See paras 2 and 8 of the version of the case.

THE points raised by the complainant in the complaint arose before us in several cases. THEy were considered in Kanhaiyalal Mathur v. Housing Board), I (1991) CPJ 37 (NC)=RLT 90 Part III 31 and subsequent decisions. It was observed in Kanhaiyalal''s case (supra) as under: "Before we proceed further, it may be mentioned that in Jyoti Prakash v. THE Rajasthan Housing Board [1979 WLN (UC) 101] it has been held that the Registration Schemes and the allotment schemes are distinguishable and no right of allotment of house is conferred on any applicants registered under the Registration Scheme and they cannot challenge the scheme. It was held in 1985 WLN (UC) 266 by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that the Board is competent to increase the price beyond ceiling in certain circumstances and one is, increase in the cost of construction. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/86 Deep Chand v. Rajasthan Housing Board, decided on 24.9.86 the Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979 was considered. It was held that the reservation is after only allotment and registration and reservation cannot be quoted. No right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of the house by Housing Board Scheme, July, September 1973."

It was affirmed in Kanhaiyalal Mathur v. R.H.B. (1991 CSMR CAS 118). THE National Commission observed: "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 et. seq. in the various draws made under the registration allotment schemes introduced from time to 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."

The Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 451/1987 decided on 16.7.87 ruled as under: "A number of petitions of a similar nature have came up before this Court and this Court name to the conclusion that mere registration does not entitle the applicant to get the house allotted at a price mentioned in the booklet. The allotment of the house has to be at the price when the house is allotted. It is well known that there is escalation of the prices and the price of the house which would have been in the year 1981 when the registration was held out cannot be the same in the year 1985-86. The petitioner cannot be said to have been given any assurance that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/- which was mentioned in the booklet in the year 1981. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is hardly attracted in the present case as no assurance can be said to have been given that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs: 1,11,900/-".

The Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1621/86 decided on 24.9.86; Bhutan v. Rajasthan Housing Board has observed as under:- "Mr. Sharma has submitted before me the Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979. In that very clause, it has been mentioned that as far as practicable the rates shall not be changed after reservation. The reservation is after only allotment; registration and reservation cannot be equated. This very rule provides that the rates can be revised looking to the increase in the costs. Mr. Sharma submits that it can be raised only upto 10 percent. It is true that prices have not after registration. In the registration estimated costs is given and the increasing cost cannot be overlooked. There is no case of hostile discrimination and the persons allotted have been treated equally and on the same amount. Even if there is a dispute about the increased rate, it can be agitated before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction where the disputed question of facts can be determined, such as, what is the increase has rightly been assessed or not and, if assessed, whether it has rightly been applied or not, can only be considered by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction as in such case the disputed questions of facts are involved."

The learned Judge distinguished the decision reported in AIR 1986 MP 88. The Supreme Court has considered AIR 1990 SC 738 and has also held that the petitioner''s grievance that the authority was not entitled to give discriminatory treatment by collecting sur-charge as component of price in side of flats constructed under MIG scheme. It was further held that the state had its agency entering into contractual field then the relations are not governed by the constitution provisions and no question arises of violation of the constitutional provisions including Art. 14.

IN Nemichand Patni v. Rajasthan Housing Board (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No: 451/87 decided on 16.7.87) the facts were that the petitioner in that case was allotted a house by the Board through its Chairman. The house was allotted at the price of Rs: 2,86,250/- and its possession had also been delivered to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner was that he applied for registration of a house in MIG category at Jaipur under General Registration Scheme 1973 and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 25.9.73. Thereafter the petitioner further deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 5.7.80 for getting his registration converted for a house in HIG category. A house in HIG category was reserved for him in Jawahar Nagar in lottery No. 3 for the year 1980-81. The petitioner was informed in 1984 that cost of the house has not been finalised and allotment letter would be issued soon after the finalisation of the same. The house was allotted to him on 26.6.85. The petitioner was surprised to learn that he was required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,78,817.44 as against Rs. 1,11,900/- as held out to the petitioner by the Board at the time of registration. The petitioner submitted a representation and prayed for justice but of no effect. Even the house allotted to him was being used as store house. Later on, another house was allotted to the petitioner after cancellation of earlier house and the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 2,86,150/-. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court consisting of Hon''ble Mr. Justice M.B. Sharma and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Farooq Hasan observed as under: "A number of petitions of a similar nature have came up before this Court, and this Court came to the conclusion that mere registration does not entitle the applicant to get the house allotted at a price mentioned in the book-let. The allotment of the house has to be at the price when the house is allotted. It is well known that there is escalation of the prices and the price of the house which would have been in the year 1981 when the registration was held out cannot be the same in the year 1985-86. The petitioner cannot be said to have been given any assurance that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/- which was mentioned in the book let in the year 1981. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is hardly attracted in the present case as no assurance can be said to have been given that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/-."

It is significant to note that it was observed that the allotment of the house has to be at the price when the house is allotted. The condition mentioned in the booklet was taken into consideration and it was held that no assurance can be said to have been given that the house would be allotted to him at the price of Rs. 1,11,900/-. In view of the aforesaid premises the writ petition was dismissed. The principles laid down by the Rajasthan High Court were brought to the notice of the National Commission in Kanhaiyalal Mathur''s case (supra) and it has agreed with them. Following those principles the other cases were decided.

THE complainant has given his affidavit in support of the complaint which we have carefully perused. Shri Rakesh Gupta OIC has in his affidavit controverted these facts. It is clear from his affidavit that house was allotted to the complainant after 1.4,1988 and price according to the Rules in vogue of land and construction was realised and this was accepted by the complainant as is clear from his letter dated 15.6.89. "Sub: Allotment of Tenement No. MPB-124 Under Registration Scheme Application No. GRS/79/53363. While acknowledging with thanks to your letter No. 1380 dated 25.5.89 I hereby duly accept the allotment made to me in Jawahar Nagar Scheme at Kota and agree to abide by all the conditions and also agree to pay the disposal price as shown in the demand Notice within scheduled time. I am complying with the requirement and submitting the same within time."

In view of the form of acceptance of letter dated 15.6.89, the complainant is precluded from challenging the price shown in the demand notice. On the representation made by the complainant, the Board treated the allotment as binding on the complainant. If the complainant is at all aggrieved of the increase in cost of the house determined by the Board, the dispute about the increased cost can only be agitated before a Civil Court where the disputed questions of facts can be determined whether the increase has rightly been assessed or not and if assessed, it has rightly been applied. Reference may be made to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1621/ 86 (supra) wherein the learned Judge observed that it can only be considered by a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction as in such case disputed questions are involved. THE complainant has also alleged discrimination amongst the allottees of the same category in regard to the allotment of the houses made. In support of the certain documents have been placed by the complainant on record after the arguments. Having gone through the documents that were submitted with the application dated 23.2.91 alongwith the clarifications given by the learned Counsel for the Board and the documents submitted today by the learned Counsel for the complainant regarding which learned Counsel for the opposite party has objection, we are of opinion that the question of discrimination sought to be raised cannot be determined in a summary enquiry under the Act.

SHRI Rakesh Gupta OIC in his affidavit dated 25.4.91 has clearly deposed that six persons whose names were referred by the complainant they were delivered possession of the houses after completion before March 1988. House No. MPB 124 allotted to the complainant was completed on 27.3.89 and allotted on 31.3.89. (See affidavit of SHRI Rakesh Gupta OIC dated 24.5.91). The objections taken by the complainant do not appear to be well founded.

Even under the Consumer Protection Act a consumer is only entitled to the grant of those reliefs which have been enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act. It is as follows: "14.(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under Sec. 13 the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things namely:- (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or as the case may be the charge paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party."

We have already mentioned the reliefs which the complainant has claimed in the complaint. It was held in RICCO v. M/s. Premier Paints [II (1991) CPJ 599 (NC)=1991 (1) CPR 614] that reliefs which have been specified in Sec. 14(1) of the Act can alone be granted by the Redressal Forum. A relief which has not been enumerated in Sec. 14(1) cannot be granted. In Balacheru Layout Vuda Flat Owners Association v. Vishakhapatanam Urban Development Authority and Others [I (1992) CPJ 46 (NC)=1991 (1) CPR 361] the National Commission after making reference to the reliefs sought by the complainant observed that those are not the reliefs which can be granted under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. The same view was taken by the National Commission in I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC) and I (1992) CPJ 228 (NC). Again in Anantram v. Telecom District Engineer Mehbubnagar (1991 CSMR CAS 41) the District Forum gave certain positive directions to the opposite party. The National Commission held that type of relief could not be granted by the District Forum under Sec. 14 of the Act. To quote "In fact Consumer Dispute Forums have no power to give directions to do or to desist." It was also observed as under: "The Commission hopes that Consumer Forums would strictly go by the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Act and grant reliefs including compensation to consumers whenever justified."

The declaration regarding cost Procedure of 1988 as prayed for by the complainant cannot be granted by the Redressal Forum. The reliefs which the complainant has sought in the relief para cannot be granted under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. There is another aspect of the matter. A perusal of the complaint shows that the validity of the cost procedure of 1988 has been assailed and challenged in the complaint. The Redressal Forums under the Act have no jurisdiction to determine the validity or otherwise of such procedure apart from the fact that the declaration that these are not applicable cannot be given.

FROM the foregoing discussion it follows that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought by him. The facts in Complaint Cases No. 136/90 to 140/90 and Complaint Cases No. 17/91 to 20/91 are by and large the same. The grievance made by the complainants in the respective complaints are identical. The reliefs sought are also identical. The houses of Sarva Shri Harish Kumar Bhasin, Abhai Kumai Jain, Jagdish Chandra Bandwana, H.L. Bahal and Vinodilal Gupta were completed in March 1989 and possession letters were issued thereafter. The complainant has cited instance of Shri Vijai Batra. It is admitted that this was done by mistake and steps are being taken to rectify that and on its basis no advantage can be deceived by the complainant. Sarva Shri Harish Kumar Bhasin, Abhai Kumar Jain and Jagdish Prasad Nandwana complainants have already disposed of their houses and as such they have disentitled themselves from getting any relief. In all the aforesaid cases the reliefs prayed for by the complainants in the complaints referred to above cannot be granted. The result is that complaint Cases Nos. 135/90. 136/90, 137/90. 138/90, 139/90, 140/90, 17/91, 18/91, 19/91 and 20/91 shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Complaints dismissed.