NISHA GUPTA vs RAJ.HOUSING BOARD

THESE cross-appeals arise out of the order of the District Forum at Udaipur made in Complaint Case No. 784/93 on 9.3.1995.

BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are that in order to purchase a residential house of MIG B category from the respondent Housing Board, the appellant got herself registered with the said Board on 26.3.1981 under its General Registration Scheme, 1981 and duly deposited the registration amount of Rs. 4,600/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited a further amount of Rs. 16,400/- towards the three instalments of seed money and finally the balance amount at Rs. 2,00,215/- on 29.7.1993. But since the possession of the allotted house was not delivered to her, even after her depositing the entire sale consideration by 30.7.1993, the complainant filed her complaint before the District Forum. In her complaint she appears to have questioned the very cost of construction of the house and also pointed out certain shortcomings in the construction. Taking note of all such facts, as were pointed out by the complainant to it and also keeping in mind the objection of the respondent board to the effect that the balance sale consideration had been deposited by the complainant with some delay, the Forum directed that on complainants depositing the amount of interest on the amount of delayed payment, she should be put in possession of the allotted house without further loss of time and also that she must be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony plus cost of litigation at Rs. 500/-. The order made by the Forum in that way, caused grievance to both the parties. Hence these appeals by them.

Insofar as the appeal of the complainant is concerned it is not in dispute that she had to deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 2,00,215/- with a delay about one month. This delay was caused due to complainants obtaining loan from her employer, the Rajasthan High Court. Be that as it may, the terms and conditions between the parties entitled the respondent Board to charge interest from the complainant on late payment of the sale consideration. That part of the impugned order is sustainable and is accordingly sustained.

INSOFAR as the grievance of the complainant appellant in respect of the shortcomings and costing of the house are concerned, we are of the opinion that objection against cost of construction cannot be decided by the redressal agencies under the C.P. Act 1986, as such objections relate to pricing policy. The redressal agencies cannot enter into the question of correctness of the policy relating costing/pricing as adopted by the respondent Housing Board. Complainants objections in that behalf are, therefore, overruled. The further objection of the complainant in respect of these shortcomings in the house is concerned we note that they have been taken due note by the Forum and the Forum and the Forum has not approved of complainants objection in that behalf. We do not think that there exists any evidence contrary to the opinion of the Forum. We are, therefore, unable to accept complainants objection in that behalf.

INSOFAR as the question of award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the appellant is concerned, we find that whereas the Forum has awarded interest to the respondent Board on simple delay of one month on late payment of the sale consideration by the complainant, the complainant has been compensated for her remaining out of possession of the allotted house for whole one year. Once the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration, she was entitled to be put in possession of the allotted house with no loss of time. But admittedly she had remained out of possession of the house for complete one year and that justifies award of compensation by the Forum to her. In the result we find no force in both these appeals and dismiss them with costs on parties. Appeals dismissed.