Rajasthan Housing Board vs BHAGTINDRA KUMAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Bikaner dated 31.1.1996 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to allot to the respondent a house of the same area which was equal in area to house No. 3/397 allotted to the respondent in Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner in the year 1993 on the cost prevailing in the year 1983 with a further direction to pay to the respondent Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

FACTS relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the respondent had got himself registered with the appellant Board on 12.11.1979 after paying a registration amount of Rs. 1,800/- and thereafter he paid two instalments of Rs. 1,450/- each to the appellant Board. In the lottery drawn by the appellant on 22.9.1983, he was allotted house No. 3/397 in Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner. The grievance of the respondent was that in spite of allotment of house, he was not delivered possession of the house for a pretty long time and when contacted, he was told by the appellant that some other person is in unauthorised possession of the house bearing No. 3/397 allotted to him. The respondent, thereafter, requested to allot him an alternative house but no heed was paid to him earlier than 17.11.1994 when through this communication, the appellant Board directed the respondent to accept House No. 3/397 allotted to him earlier; at the prevailing market rate. The respondent was not prepared for it because the house in question was still in possession of some other person. Having failed to obtain the possession of the house from the appellant Board, he approached the learned District Forum for allotment of the house as also for claiming compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort. The appellant resisted the complaint by filing a written version and insisted that the respondent has to accept the allotted house No. 3/397 at the current market rate. It also averred that the matter of pricing/costing cannot be a subject matter of a consumer dispute. The learned District Forum after evaluation of the evidence tendered before it decreed the claim as stated earlier.

It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the question of pricing/costing of the house allotted by the appellant Board does not lie within the purview of the Consumer Fora. It has also been urged that the respondent having refused to accept the house allotted to him; he now is not entitled to claim any relief. The learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the arguments has relied upon the decision of Hon''ble the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 451/1987, Nemi Chand Patni v. Rajasthan Housing Board, decided on 16.7.1987 as also the order of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5190/1989 decided on 25.7.1994; dismissing the appeal filed by Nemi Chand Patni in limine.

AS against it, the learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. We have given due thought and consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the facts of the case in hand are distinguishable from the facts as were available before Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nemi Chand Patni and, therefore, that principle cannot be applied over here. Further, when the appellant Board is insisting the respondent to accept House No. 3/397 in Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner and there is no material placed on record that any additions or alterations or any additional constructions have been made in the same house, it cannot now ask the respondent to pay the cost of the house at the current prevailing market rate; more so when the lottery was drawn in favour of the respondent in the year 1983 itself. Further, the appellant Board is still not clear as to whether the House No. 3/397 is still available for being allotted and delivered to the respondent because the respondent has been continuously asserting that the house in question is in possession of some other person. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum has committed no error whatsoever in allotting a house of the same area and dimensions and at the same cost prevailing in the year 1983 as was applicable in the case of House No. 3/397 in Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner.

THE question now remains whether, the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is on a higher side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that since the learned District Forum has directed the appellant to allot and deliver the possession of the house of the same area and dimensions and at same cost as prevailed in the year 1983, we feel that the compensation awarded to the respondent is on higher side which has to be scaled down to Rs. 25,000/-. Consequently, the appeal stands partly accepted with a direction to the appellant to allot and deliver possession of the house of the same area and dimensions at that of House No. 3/397 in Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner within a period of four months from the date of this order and to pay to the respondent Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with cost at Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the learned District Forum. Cost on parties. Appeal partly allowed.