Lakshmi Narain vs RAJASTHAN AVASAN MANDAL

BOTH these appeals by the legal representatives of the same complainant, against the same respondent, involving dispute about the same subject-matter but brought before the Distt. Forum through two separate complaints filed at different times and decided by separate orders, made on different dates, were heard together. These are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.

FACTS, relevant to and sufficient for disposal of both the appeals. During the year, 1973 Rajasthan Housing Board (the ''Board''), respondent, floated a Housing Scheme under the name of General Registration Scheme, 1973. Under this Scheme houses were promised to be constructed of different types to cater the needs of persons of different categories. One of such category was to be known as "Janta Category". This category comprised persons having maximum annual income of Rs. 2,400/- only. The houses to be constructed for persons registered under this category were to have one room, kitchen, latrine and bathroom, a small multi-purpose Verand and Sehan in a total area of 59 sq. metres. It was promised that houses to the person registered for this category would be made available within a period of 1 to 3 years after their registration. Late Smt. Premwati, the deceased wife of Sri Laxmi Narain Sharma, appellant and mother of rest of the appellants, got herself registered on 28.9.1973 with the Board for allotment of a residential house of this "Janta Category".

After having waited for the allotment of a house for about 10 years the deceased appellant received a letter from the Board on 21.9.1981 suggesting that applicants registered under "Janta Category" may opt for a house under newly floated scheme called "Economically Backward Persons Category" on payment of additional registration amount of Rs. 400/-. It was notified by the Board that those opting for this category would be provided houses having two rooms, kitchen, Veranda, latrine, bathroom, staircase and open space on front and back sides in a total area of 92 sq. metres. She opted for this category and duly deposited the additional amount of Rs. 400/- on 8.10.1981 with the Board.

BY their allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.7.1988 the respondents allotted to the deceased complainant House No. 11/826 in its Malviya Nagar Scheme at a cost of Rs. 16,800/- under Hire-Purchase Scheme. The allottee was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,821/- within a month and take possession thereof by 9.9.1988 and pay the balance amount in 180 instalments of Rs. 186/- each, the first instalment payable on 10.9.1988. But when the officials took her to the location of the house it was known that the said house was a ''flat'' built on 8.86 sq. metres only and not an independent ''house'' of the size and constructed units, as was promised to her at the time of receiving the additional amount of registration from her. She, therefore, submitted to the respondents her objection and disinclination to take possession of the allotted flat vide her registered letter dated 18.8.1988. The record shows no communication from the respondent to her thereafter for another one decade. It was only by respondents'' letter No. 113 dated 5.5.1994 that she was informed that as per decision taken on 3.3.1994 the allotment made in her favour was cancelled on the ground of her having not deposited the amount of Rs. 2,821/-.

IT appears that after having waited for a long time for allotment of a house of her and before receipt of the cancellation letter dated 5.5.1994 from the respondents, the deceased complainant had approached the Distt. Forum praying for direction to the respondents to allot a house to her according to the contract with her and also to pay compensation. A complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the ''Act'') though was prepared on 30.4.1994 but the same was filed in the Distt. Forum, Jaipur on 9.5.1994. By 22.7.1994 District Forum, Jaipur II had come into existence. The complaint was, therefore, transferred from Distt. Forum, Jaipur I to Distt. Forum, Jaipur II where it was received on 18.10.1994. The complaint was, however, subsequently re-transferred to Distt. Forum, Jaipur I where it was registered as Complaint No. 689/96. This complaint has been dismissed by the Distt. Forum, Jaipur vide its order dated 2.5.1997 on the ground of being barred by limitation. This order of the Distt. Forum Jaipur I, has given rise to Appeal No. 1337/97 before us. (It may be mentioned that the original complainant Smt. Premwati died during the pendency of the two complaints and the present appeals were filed before us by her legal representatives.) As stated above, Complaint No. 689/96 had been got prepared on 30.4.1994 and, perhaps, to the knowledge of the deceased, the complaint had also been filed in the Distt. Forum before the cancellation letter dated 5.5.1994 was received by her. Anyway, it was on the receipt of such letter by her after filing Complaint No. 689/96 on 30.4.1994, registered in the year 1994-1996, that she filed another complaint being No. 324/94, on 25.7.1994 in Distt. Forum, Jaipur II seeking cancellation of the allotment/registration and allotment of a house as per her option exercised in the year 1984. This complaint has been dismissed by the Distt. Forum, Jaipur II vide order dated 11.9.1996 on the ground that pricing policy and costing principles cannot be gone into by the Forum within its limited jurisdiction. This order of Distt. Forum, Jaipur II has given rise to Appeal No. 2037/96 before us. (It may be mentioned that the original complainant, Smt. Premwati died during the pendency of the two complaints and the present appeals were filed before us by her legal representatives.)

AFTER having heard the two appeals we had suggested to the parties to enquire into and report to us within a week, about of the availability of an independent residential house, of the ''economically backward persons'' category, if one might be falling vacant, so that the prayer of the appellant may be sympathetically considered. No report has been submitted to us by either party till date.

IT is evident that since the allotment made in favour of the deceased complainant had been cancelled on 5.5.1994, the contract between the parties sustained till that date. The complaint was filed on 9.5.1994 and, therefore, it could not have been held to be time-barred. The impugned order dated 2.5.1997 dismissing Complaint No. 689/96 is, therefore, not sustainable and is hereby set aside. Insofar as Complaint No. 324 of 1994, giving rise to Appeal No. 2037/96, is concerned the same has been dismissed on the ground of involvement of the costing principles and pricing policy. There can be no dispute that consideration of costing principles and pricing policy, related to and adopted in the construction and allotment of houses by the Board, go beyond the scope of inquiry to be conducted by the Fora in the adjudication of consumer disputes between the consumers and the Board. But in the present case that was not nature of dispute between the parties. Herein the dispute between them was that instead of allotting an independent ''house'' in an area of 92 sq. metres, a ''flat'' of an area of 8.6 metres only was allotted to the deceased complainant. Having promised to sell a cow to her but offering to deliver a goat instead, could have given rise to a genuine grievance to her and she could have legitimately declined the offer. Respondents own conduct of not cancelling the allotment/registration for about eight years after the expression of her disinclination on 18.8.1988 to accept the allotment of the flat speaks that the objection by the deceased complainant was not without any basis. This position of facts involved no costing principles and pricing policy. The dismissal of the complaint on such ground was, therefore, bad in law and on facts. The impugned order dated 2.5.1997, challenged in Appeal No. 1337/97 is accordingly liable to be and is hereby set aside.

Now the most disturbing question before us is as to what relief could be and should be awarded to the appellants. It is not disputed that when the deceased complainant had got herself registered with the Board in 1973 for allotment of one room set house in "Janta Scheme" she was undoubtedly a member of a poor family. Due to the expansion of her family she had to opt for two room set on 92 sq. metre land in 1984. In 1994 she was allotted a flat at a cost of Rs. 16,800/- only. Almost another decade has passed to that allotment. Price of land and cost of construction during this long period has undergone a sea-change. A two room house cannot now be had for Rs. 16,800/-. But for this position the appellants are not at fault. Living for thirty years in the found hope of getting a roof over the heads of his/her children is too long a period to test the nerves of anybody. Keeping all these fact in mind we had asked for the help of the parties to solve the problem in a way, which does not unreasonably cause prejudice to the interest of either of the parties. Unfortunately, we could not succeed in our efforts. We are, therefore, left with no alternative but to come out of the impasse by making our order in the following manner: 1. The respondents shall allot and deliver the possession thereof, to the appellants an independent house, constructed in an area of 92 sq. metres as per specification given for "Economically Backward Category" of its scheme promulgated in 1984 at the cost which the Board charged from the allottees of such a house in the year 1994 on Hire Purchase Scheme.

Instruction No. 1 shall be carried out by the Board within a period of four months from the date of service of this order on it.

Within a period of two months from the date of service of this order, the respondent Board shall deliver to the appellants and submit to this commission also, a letter, through registered post, clearly mentioning therein the total cost of the house, amount payable by the appellants at the time of delivery of the house and the number and quantum of the instalments through which the balance amount shall be payable by the appellants under Hire Purchase Scheme. This letter would be necessarily accompanied with certified copies of three allotment letters showing allotment of houses of the same category with cost and number of instalments to the allottees in 1994 in order to see that equal treatment with regard to cost of house and instalments has been meted out to the appellants.

In case the respondent Board fails to carry out instruction No. 3 above within the time specified therein, they would pay to the appellants a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. The same result would follow if after having delivered the letter along with requisite enclosures therewith, the Board fails to deliver the possession of the allotted house within the specified four months, after the appellants have deposited the amount, to be paid at the time of taking delivery of the house.

In case the appellants fail to deposit the amount payable by the date of delivery of the possession of the house, as per demand made through the letter, mentioned in direction No. 3, they would forfeit their right to get Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- from the respondents and their complaints and these appeals shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

Appeal allowed.