PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS complaint has been filed by Prabhat Kumar Sharma against the Rajasthan Housing Board claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,05,500/ .

FACTS of the case are that Prabhat Kumar Sharma, who is resident of Bharatpur, had made an application No. 1275 on 29.8.73 for registering him for allotment of a house in economically weaker section group after making deposit of Rs. 500/ as registration charges on the said date. Alongwith the application the complainant had filed certificate dated 29.9.73 issued by the Secretary, Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Jaipur certifying that the annual emoluments drawn by Prabhat Kumar Sharma, L.D.C of the Corporation were Rs.3396/ .The Housing Board registered the complainant for allotment of a house in economically weaker section group. Thereafter on 6.5.81 the complainant made an application to the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board stating that he wanted to change the category of the house to MIG A category for which deposit of Rs. 3000/ as registration charges was compulsory. The complainant showed his readiness to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2500/ as registration charges. Alongwith this application, the complainant filed an affidavit that he was then practising as an Advocate and his annual income during the year 1980 81 was Rs. 5400/ . Apart from that his wife was doing private teaching work (tuition) and her annual income during the year 1980 81 was Rs.3,000/ . This affidavit was to the effect that combined annual income of the complainant and his wife during the year 1980 81 was Rs. 8400/ . Upon receipt of this application the Housing Board wrote a letter to the complainant on 27.6.81 requiring the complainant to submit necessary certificate about the income of his wife during the year 1972 73. The complainant sent an affidavit of his wife to the effect that she was not having any income during the year 1972 73 and that she had income of Rs. 3000/ per year during the year 1980 81 by teaching work. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 2500/ on 29.8.91 as balance amount of registration and allotment of houses approved by the Rajasthan Housing Board in November December, 1981, the complainant made an application dated 14.6.82 for further converting his registration for MIG B category house and for that the complainant deposited a further registration amount of Rs. 1600/ on 14.6.82. Alongwith this application the complainant had filed an affidavit that during the year 1981 82 his annual income from all the sources was Rs. 11,500/ .It appears that on the earlier application of the complainant for changing the category to MIG A, the Housing Board had issued an intimation dated 18.5.82 to the complainant regarding registering him for MIG A category house. As already stated on 14/ 15.6.82 the complainant had further applied for changing the category from MIG A to MIG B. The matter did not end there. On 24.6.82 the complainant further de posited an amount of Rs. 5400/ as registration charges and on 27.1.83, he applied to the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board for further changing his category to Higher Income Group. He also sent a reminder on 18.7.83 for the purpose. That was the reason that although the Rajasthan Housing Board had prepared a reservation letter in favour of the complainant for MIG B category house, but this letter was not issued to the complainant because the complainant had already applied for changing his category from MIG B to HIG on 27.1.83. It appears that in the month of January, 83 the Rajasthan Housing Board pub lished a list of eligibility of registered applicants and in that list the name of the complainant was shown in the MIG B category applicants. Nothing happened thereafter for about six years. It was on 29.4.89 that the complainant submitted an application to the Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board wherein the complainant mentioned that in the eligibility list published by the Board, his name was shown as registered applicant for a house of MIG B category. He mentioned that he had deposited a further registration amount of Rs. 5400/ on 24.6.82 and had applied on 27.1.83 for changing his category to HIG. The complainant, therefore, requested that allotment letter may be issued in his favour of HIG category house. Thereafter again there was silence for about 5 years. It was on 9.8.94 that the complainant made an application to the Secretary of the Rajasthan Housing Board mentioning therein that he had attended that office of the Housing Board from 30.7.94 to 2.8.94 and it was found by him that his file in the Rajasthan Housing Board was untraceable for five years. Upon his making efforts, the file was traced. The complainant also mentioned in the application that upon tracing of the file, the complainant was informed that his category for the house had been changed in the year 1989 to HIG category and the priority number assigned to him in that category was 164. The complainant, therefore, requested for issue of allotment letter of HIG category house to him immediately. Reminder was sent by the complainant on 22.4.95. Thereafter on 6.5.95 the Housing Board issued a reservation letter to the complainant reserving in his favour a HIG category house. Complainant was required to deposit seed money in three instalments of Rs. 35,000/ , Rs. 35,000/ and Rs. 25,000/ . In this reservation letter, it was mentioned that the complainant had given his option for allotment of house on hire cum purchase basis and the benefit of this reservation letter would be given to the complainant if he obtained financial assistance from institutions like HDFC, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and that the complain ant will have to deposit full cost of the house. If the complainant will not be agreeable to this, his allotment would be cancelled. As against this reservation letter, the complainant made a representation to the Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur on 30.5.95. In this representation letter, the complainant mentioned that the reservation should have been made of HIG category house on hire cum purchase basis and not on the basis of full payment of the cost of the house by taking financial assistance from financial institutions. The complainant further mentioned in his representation that he should have been included in the lottery drawn in the year 1988 when lottery draw was held for allotment of house in Jawaharnagar, Jaipur. The complainant filed the present complaint in the State Commission on 21.6.95. It may be mentioned here that after the filing of the complaint a revised reservation letter was sent to the complainant on 5.9.95 whereby the complainant was required to de posit the seed money in three instalments. On 6.9.95 a further letter was sent by the Estate Manager of the Board to the complainant wherein it was stated that the State Government had for the first time being imposed a ban on allotment of HIG category house on hire cum purchase basis. It was further mentioned that as soon as the ban was lifted by the State Government, allotment of the house would be made to the complainant on hire cum purchase basis. It was further stated that the revised reservation letter has already been sent to the complainant on 5.9.95 which does not contain the condition regarding complainant''s liability to pay the entire cost of the house on allotment after taking financial assistance from financial institutions. Above are the facts of the case as found by us after perusing the file relating to the complainant maintained in the Rajasthan Housing Board.

Complainant has claimed following reliefs in his complaint: (a) The opposite party should allot to the complainant house of HIG category according to 1983 priority and on the price applicable thereto and that also on hire cum purchase basis. (b) The State Commission may direct the Opposite Party to hold a high level enquiry for misplacing the file of the complainant for more than 5 years and to take disciplinary action against responsible officers or employees of the Board. (c) Complainant may be awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for the economic loss suffered by the complain ant on account of not allotting to him house for 22 years as he had got himself registered for the house in the year 1973. The complainant has stated that he could not shift to Jaipur from Bharatpur in order to practice as an Advocate at Jaipur on account of non allotment of the house for 22 years. (d) Compensation of Rs. 5 lacs may be awarded to the complainant for mental distress and agony and Rs. 5,500/ as costs.

ON behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board, a counter affidavit has been filed by Lal Chand Asnani, Assistant Housing Officer (Le gal) in which he has deposed that the complain ant got registration done in General Registration Scheme and deposited Rs. 500/ on 29.9.73. In 1981 the complainant requested for change of his category to MIG A. The complainant again re quested for change of category to MIG B in 1982. Without taking sanction of the Rajasthan Housing Board, the complainant deposited Rs. 5400/ on 24.6.82 for registering him under HIG category. Lal Chand Asnani has further deposed that the registration was done in HIG category in 1989 and priority No. 164 was assigned to the complainant. Then it is said that on 6.5.95 reservation letter was issued to the complainant to deposit the seed money in three instalments, but the complainant did not deposit the seed money. It is further deposed that a revised reservation letter was issued to the complainant on 5.9.95 to deposit the seed money but that has not been done. Then Shri Asnani has deposed that a letter was issued to the complainant on 6.9.95 mentioning therein that houses are not being allotted at present moment in HIG category under hire purchase basis and as soon as this restriction was removed, the complainant will be allotted house under hire purchase scheme. Despite this letter the complainant did not deposit the seed money. Lastly, Shri Lal Chand Asnani has said that the complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the State Commission, because imaginary and presumptive figures of compensation have been mentioned just to bring the complaint within the higher pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Com mission. It is also said that complaint for allotment of a house at a particular price at a particular time cannot be entertained because pricing is not within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the record. The Rajasthan Housing Board cannot be blamed at all upto the year 1983. It was complain ant himself who had been changing his category time and again. In the year 1973 the complainant was so poor that he got himself registered in economically weaker section category on 29.9.73 showing his annual emoluments only Rs. 3,396/ In 1981 the complainant applied for change of category to MIG A after depositing a further registration amount of Rs. 2500/ with affidavit to say that his annual income had in creased to Rs. 5,400/ per year and that of his wife Rs. 3000/ per year by private teaching. The Housing Board changed the category of the complainant to MIG A on 18.5.82. However, within one month thereafter the complainant again applied for change of his category to MIG B. The Housing Board also notified the complainant in the list published by it of registered applicants of MIG B category. After seeing that list, the complainant again applied on 27.1.83 and 18.7.83 for change of his category even from MIG B to HIG The complainant of his own accord deposited the additional amount of Rs. 5400/ as registration charges for HIG category. After 18.7.83, the complainant made application to the Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board after about 6 years i.e. on 29.4.89 wherein he mentioned the fact that he had deposited the additional registration amount of Rs. 5400/ on 24.6.82 for registering him for HIG category house and wherein he made request for allotting to him a HIG category house. The note sheets on the file of the Rajasthan Housing Board go to show that upon the complainant making the application dated 29.4.89 the Board considered this application. The Chief Estate Manager of the Housing Board raised a query on 12.7.89 that when the complainant had not obtained any sanction for change of category to HIG, how he can be assigned priority in that category. The office of the Housing Board made its notings on this query and ultimately on 4.10.89 it was decided that priority can be assigned to the complainant in HIG category. The complainant was assigned priority No. 164 with respect to HIG category house of 1973. However despite this determination, no reservation letter was issued to the complainant before 6.5.95. That was also done on an application which had been filed by the complainant on 9.8.94 wherein the complain ant had stated that he had come to the office of the Board on 30.7.94 and 2.8.94 and it was found that for the last 5 years, the file of the Housing Board was not traceable. After the complainant made efforts the file was traced. The complainant''s case that the file was not traceable for 5 years is worthy of acceptance, because the Estate Manager had decided on 4.10.89 with regard to the issue of the reservation letter. However no reservation letter was issued to the complainant till 6.5.95. There was even a fault in the reservation letter dated 6.5.95 and the fault was that although the complainant had got him self registered for a house of hire cum purchase basis, but a condition was imposed in the reservation letter that the complainant will have to pay the entire cost of the house after taking loan from financial institutions. This condition was resented by the complainant by notice dated 30.5.95. As the condition was not removed, the complainant filed the present complaint in the State Commission. After the filing of the complaint, the Estate Manager of the Housing Board issued a revised allotment letter requiring the complainant to deposit the seed money. A further letter was sent to the complainant that for the time being the State Government had issued a ban for allotment of HIG category house on hire cum purchase basis. It was further written that as soon as this ban was lifted, the complain ant will be allotted house according to the priority on a priority basis on hire cum purchase basis.

FROM the facts mentioned above, it would appear that there was gross inaction by the Rajasthan Housing Board for not deciding the application of the complainant dated 27.1.83 for change of category from MIG B to HIG for about six years. The matter regarding change of category should have been decided by the Housing Board within a reasonable time after 27.1.83. It was only when the complainant moved an application on 29.4.89 that the matter was considered in the office of the Housing Board and on 4.10.89 it was decided that the complainant may be assigned priority No. 164 in the HIG category of the year 1973. Despite this decision the office of the Housing Board did not issue reservation letter to the complainant for about 5 years. The file remained misplaced or otherwise wrongly placed during a period of 5 years. It was only when the complainant got the file traced on 5.8.94 that a reservation letter was issued on 6.5.95 and that also having a condition that the complainant will have to deposit the entire cost of the house after taking financial assistance from financial institutions. When it had been decided by the Rajasthan Housing Board on 4.10.89 to accept the application of the complain ant for change of category to HIG and to assign to the complainant priority No. 164 of HIG category in the priority list of the year 1973, it was incumbent upon the Board to issue the reservation letter soon after 4.10.89. There was gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the Rajasthan Housing Board that despite the decision arrived at on 4.10.89, the Estate Manager issued the reservation letter after 6 years on 6.5.95 and that also with a wrong addition of the abovementioned condition. It was only after the filing of the complaint by the complainant that a revised allotment letter dated 5.9.95 was issued to the complainant deleting the condition regarding payment of the entire cost of the house after taking financial assistance from the financial institutions. Alongwith this reservation letter a separate letter was sent to the complainant that for the time being the State Government had issued a ban for allotment of HIG category house on hire cum purchase basis. The complainant was assured that as soon as the ban was lifted, allotment will be made to the complainant of the house on hire cum purchase basis. This was said by the opposite party to the complainant after about 2 months of the filing of the complaint by the complainant in this State Commission. Naturally when the complainant will be allotted a house of HIG category by the opposite party, he would be required to pay the cost of the house as may be determined at the time of allotment and that would be much higher cost than what the cost of the house would have been, if a decision on the application of the complain ant for conversion of category to HIG category would have been taken soon after 27.1.83 when the complainant had made application for that purpose and for that if a reservation letter had been issued to the complainant soon after 4.10.89, the complainant would have been required to pay much lesser cost of the house than he will now have to pay when he is now allotted a house. The complainant has in the light of the above facts suffered economic loss as well as mental distress and agony. He could not shift to Jaipur to practise as an Advocate because reservation of HIG category house was not made in his favour till 5.9.95. When the complainant had been registered and assigned priority of HIG category house and that also on hire cum purchase basis, the Housing Board was bound to reserve and to allot to the complainant an HIG A category house on hire cum purchase basis. It was entirely wrong on the part of the Opposite Party to have issued reservation letter on 6.5.95 to the complainant imposing the condition that he will have to pay the entire cost of the house after taking financial loan from financial institutions. At every stage the officials of the Housing Board have been negligent whether it may be the matter pertaining to conversion of category or to the issue of the reservation letter or as to the maintenance of the file of the Rajasthan Housing Board properly and in misplacing the file for 5 years. It is only the complainant who suffers from all these gross fault, negligence and carelessness of the officials of the Rajasthan Housing Board. It is a fit case that the complainant should be awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for all the gross negligence of the Housing Board or its officials. We, therefore, pass the following orders: The complainant will deposit the seed money as required by the revised allotment letter issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board on 5.9.95. The first instalment of Rs. 35/000/ of the seed money would be deposited within two months of the receipt of this order by the complainant. The second instalment of seed money of Rs. 35,000/ will be deposited within six months thereafter and the third instalment of Rs. 25,000/ would be deposited within one year of the receipt of this order by the complainant. Upon deposit by the complainant of the seed money amount, the Rajasthan Housing Board will immediately take steps to allot to the complainant a HIG category house on hire cum purchase basis without any delay. We further direct that the Rajasthan Housing Board will pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for the abnormal delay caused in the allotment of the house to the complainant solely on account of the negligence of its officials. The Housing Board will be at liberty to recover this amount of Rs. 2 lacs from any officer or employee of the Rajasthan Housing Board who was responsible in not taking decision for changing the category of the complainant for six years, for not issuing the reservation letter even after the decision was arrived at for another period of six years and for misplacing the file relating to the complainant for 5 years and for issuing an incorrect reservation letter on 6.5.95. The payment of this amount of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs would be made by the Opposite Party to the complainant within three months of the receipt of this order by the Rajasthan Housing Board. The complainant will further get Rs. 2000/ as costs of this complaint. Complaint allowed. _______________