RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD And OTHERS-/O.P. vs KRISHANPAL DHIR

AGAINST the order dated 8.4.90 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 1206/90 the opposite parties have filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). By the impugned order, the District Forum directed the opposite parties-applicants that the amount of DC/SDC which was paid by the complainant-respondent to the Rajasthan Housing Board ("the Board") may be set off against the dues that may be outstanding against the complainant.

THE complainant-respondent was allotted House No. 40/11 in Mansarower Colony, Jaipur after payment of the entire amount. THE possession of the house was delivered to the complainant on 10.7.89 and since then the complainant is owner in possession of the house. THE complainant has alleged that by allotment-cum-possession letter No. 495 dated 22.5.89 a sum of Rs. 5668/- being extra charges for DC/SDC houses was recovered from him. It may be stated here that a revised allotment-cum-possession letter dated 53.90 was issued in which extra charges for DC/SDC houses mentioned were Rs. 5596/-. It is not in dispute before us that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,668/- in pursuance of the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 22.5.89. THEre was a road towards the West of the house upto Sept.90 which was used as way by inhabitants of the colony. It is said that opposite parties No. 2 and 3 on account of malice with the complainant constructed wall and closed it declaring that a commercial complex would be constructed. THE grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties had no right to deprive him of the facility of the road after realizing extra cost for the house, it being constructed on a corner plot. THE complainant has stated his grievances in detail in para 4 of the complaint. THE complaint dated 29.11.90 was filed praying for the grant of the following reliefs : " ATTAH PRARTHNA PATTER PRASTUT KAR NIVEDEN HAI KI PRARTHNA PATTER SWEEKAR KIYA JAKAR VIPAKSHI JAN KO NIRDESH DIYA GAYA KI VEH PRARTHI KE MAKAN KA CORNER PEHELE KI BHANTI PASCHIM KI AUR NIRMITS SADAK KI AUR REHENE DE VA PURB-PASCHIM DEEWAAR KO TURANT PRABHAV SE APNE KHARCH PAR HATWAE VA PRARTHI KO KSHATI PURTI BATAUR DUS HAZAR RUPEY VIPAKSHI JANO SE DILWAYE JAYE."

With the complainant, respondent submitted photographs, plan and copies of allotment-cum-possession letter. A version of the case was filed traversing the allegations made in the complaint by opposite party No. 3. It was denied that any comer plot was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant. As regards the extra charges for SDC houses amounting to Rs. 5668/- and subsequently that amount was revised to Rs. 5596/- were mentioned. According to the opposite parties, the plot on which the "house allotted is constructed was a SDC and not a DC. It was denied that there was any road on the western side of the complainant''s allotted house. It was also stated that the extra charges amounting to Rs. 5668/- mentioned in the first allotment letter or Rs. 5596/- mentioned in the second allotment-cum-possession letter were for SDC plot. Claim for compensation was denied. The District Forum heard the arguments on 22.3.91 and passed the impugned order as stated above. Hence this appeal by opposite parties as aforesaid.

We have heard Mr. R.K. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Yashpal Garg learned Counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the order under appeal in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. A perusal of the plan submitted with the complaint clearly shows that that house was built on a corner plot. There is no dispute about the correctness of the plan. It is also not disputed before us that the wall has been constructed by which allotted house ceased to be on a corner plot. As has been stated in the version of the case that a sum of Rs. 5668/- which is mentioned in the first allotment-cum-possession letter or for that matter a sum of Rs. 5596/- mentioned in the revised allotment-cum-possession letter was charged from the complainant for SDC. Mr. R.K. Sharma pressed for our consideration that the house even after the construction of the wall on the road is SDC for which extra charges mentioned at item No. 3 under the head ''A'' cost of the house were recovered. It is surprising that neither in the first allotment-cum-possession letter nor in the second allotment-cum-possession letter the words DC were scored out. What is written is extra charges for DC/SDC houses. The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the appellants is contrary to what is contained in the map Ex.1 which leaves no doubt in our mind that the plot on which the house was constructed and the allotment-cum-possession letter was issued was a corner plot and admittedly that situation has been changed in Sept-Oct.90 after the issuance of the first allotment-cum-possession letter or the second allotment-cum-possession letter. We are not happy with the observations made by the District Forum while granting here life to the complainant-respondent. The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows : - " VIPAKSHI JAN KO ADESH HOTA HAI KI YADI AVAS NO. 40/11 KA AVANTAN KA SATH JARI NAKSHEY [PRADARSAN 4 MAI] MAI VARNIT SADAK KA STHAN SADAK KA NIRMAN NAHI KARVAYA AKKA INPER KA PRASTAVIT KARYA KRIANVIT HOTA HAI TO PARIVADI SE AVANTANRUPI PATTA JO RAKAM VASULI JA RAHI HAI USME D.C./S.D.C. PATTA JO RAKAM VASULI GAYI YA VASULI JANE WALI HAI, KO AVANTAN KI KUL RASHI MAI SE KAM KAR DIYA JAYE AUR IS RAKAM KI VASULI KI KARYAVAHI BHI NAHI HOGI. YADI YAHI RAKAM [SOLHA] AB TAK VASULI JA CHUKI HO TO USAE 16% VARSHIK DAR SE BYAJ SAHIT PARTIVADI KA KHATE MAI SAMAYOJIT KIYA JAEGA."

All these contingencies do not arise for the simple reason that extra charges mentioned at item No. 3 under the head ''A'' cost of the house have already been paid by the complainant-respondent to the Board and there is no dispute in respect of that. By constructing a road so as to change the situation of the plot on which the house was constructed from comer plot to other situation for we need not make a detailed probe whether it is still SDC or not for the simple reason that the house allotted existed on a corner plot as stated above. The service rendered by the Board in this respect suffered from deficiency as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act. The complainant had deposited the amount as mentioned at item No. 3 under the head ''A'' cost of the house in the allotment-cum-possession letter. The erection of the wall will amount to a loss or at any rate injury to the complainant, and that was on account of the breach of condition which atleast constitutes negligence and complainant is entitled to compensation in respect of this amount. We, therefore, modify the Order passed by the District Forum and direct the opposite parties-appellants to pay Rs. 5668/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the order failing which the complainant will be entitled to recover this a mount together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the filing of the complaint until realization. There is justification in the submission of Mr. R.K, Sharma learned Counsel for the appellants that the costs awarded by the District Forum are unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the complaint and the time taken for the disposal of the complaint. The amount of cost is reduced to Rs. 500/- from Rs. 1,000/-. The order passed by the District Forum is modified as indicated above.

THE appeal succeeds to the extent stated hereinabove. Parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.