Rajasthan Housing Board vs HARBANS SINGH

THIS appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board against the order of the District Forum Sri Ganganagar dated 3.12.92 directing the appellant to allot a house to the complainant-respondent in the same way in which houses were allotted to other applicants mentioned in the allotment list dated 25.2.88 and further to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant in accordance with rules and also to pay Rs. 5000/- as costs of the complaint. It was further directed by the District Forum, Ganganagar that necessary action for allotment of the house to the complainant may be taken within one month and possession of the house be delivered to the complainant.

ADMITTEDLY the complainant-respondent had got himself registered with the Rajasthan Housing Board in the year 1984 for allotment of a house to him. After the registration, the Rajasthan Housing Board at Ganganagar issued a reservation letter dated 27.1.87 in favour of the complainant reserving a house in MIG II category in the reservation scheme 1986-87 at Hanumangarh. The complainant was required by this reservation letter to deposit a total amount of Rs. 12,000/- as seed money in two instalments of Rs. 6,000/- each payable by 25.2.87 and 25.8.87. The complainant had deposited both these instalments of seed money of Rs. 6,000/- each respectively on 17.2.87 and 19.8.97. The complainant has produced the photo copies of the two challans whereunder the two instalments of seed money were deposited by him in time. The complainants case was that despite the fact that he had deposited the instalments of seed money, the Housing Board neither sent any intimation to complainant regarding allotment of a house to him and nor delivered possession of the house. It was alleged that the Housing Board had allotted the house meant for the complainant to some other person. When the complainant made a grievance regarding this in the Hanumangarh office of the Housing Board, the Jr. Engineer of the Board intimated to the complainant that an order was received from the Bikaner office of the Board to settle the dispute of the complainant by some way. It was alleged that the Jr. Engineer also told to the complainant that his allotted house had been allotted to some other person and the complainant may take refund of the total amount of Rs. 17,000/- which had been deposited by him in respect, of registration charges and seed money. The complainant sent a notice to the Housing Board on 24.7.91 requiring the Board to deliver possession of the house to him at the old cost price. On the basis of these averments, the complainant prayed that the Housing Board may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 17,000/- deposited by the complainant to him alongwith interest at 18% p.a. It was further prayed that the Housing Board may be directed to allot to the complainant a house at the cost in force in the year 1988 and further to pay Rs. 6,000/- as compensation for not delivering the house and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony. The complainant also prayed for costs of the complaint. The version of the Rajasthan Housing Board before the District Forum that it had published a notice in the newspaper dated 13.2.91 intimating that houses have been allotted to all the applicants for house of Hanumangarh. It was also mentioned in the notice that those applicants to whom houses had not been allotted so far may make their application to the Housing Engineer, Bikaner upto 29.2.91. Despite publishing this notice in the newspaper dated 13.2.91, the complainant did not make any application to the Housing Engineer, Bikaner stating that house had not been allotted to him. It was further pleaded that the complainant had not given any intimation to the Housing Board regarding his having deposited the seed money. It was denied that the Jr. Engineer had told to the complainant what he had alleged in the complaint.

From the narration of above facts it is quite clear that the complainant had upon receipt of the reservation letter deposited the two instalments of seed money in time. It is not disputed by the Housing Board that it had decided to allot houses to all the applicants of Hanumangarh. The only case of the Housing Board is mat it had published a notice in the newspaper dated 13.2.91 giving to all applicants intimation as mentioned above. Clearly the complainant was entitled to allotment of the house because he was a registered applicant for a house in Hanumangarh and he had complied with requirements of the reservation letter. It was not at all necessary for the complainant to intimate mat he had deposited the seed money. The seed money had been deposited by the complainant in State Bank of India, Hanumangarh Branch. The counterfoil of the challan goes to the Housing Board Office from the Bank. Bakhtawar Singh, Project Junior Engineer of the Housing Board at Hanumangarh has admitted in his cross-examination that the complainant had deposited the two installments of the seed money. It was also admitted by him that the amounts of the seed money have been credited in the record maintained by the Housing Board. It is thus clear that the Housing Board should have allotted to the complainant house at Hanumangarh like all other applicants. There was no reason to exclude the complainant from allotment despite the fact that the complainant fulfilled all the requirements of allotment. It is not necessary that every one reads newspaper and sees the notices published in newspaper. As a part of performance of service, it is necessary that the Housing Board should efficiently perform its service. When the amount of seed money stood credited in the record maintained by the Housing Board, it was necessary for it in the performance of its service to allot a house to the complainant. There was clear-cut deficiency in service by the Housing Board.

IT may be stated here that the District Forum, Ganganagar by its order dated 3.12.92 has directed for allotment of a house to the complainant like other applicants and to deliver its possession within one month. Before the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended in June 1993, this relief could not be granted by the District Forum. The complainant has filed the complaint on 18.9.91 and the complaint was decided by the District Forum on 3.12.92. According to Sec. 14 of the said Act as it then stood, the District Forum could only award compensation to the complainant and not allotment of a house. As to the quantum of compensation, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs 17,000/- deposited by him in respect of registration charges and seed money alongwith interest at 15% p.a. from 13.2.91 till payment of the amount by the Board to the complainant. The complainant is further entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs. 8,000/- for mental distress and agony. He is also entitled to Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the complaint.

WE therefore, partly allow this appeal and modify the order of the District Forum, Ganganagar in this manner that the opposite party-appellant would refund to the complain-, ant amount of Rs. 17,000/- deposited by the complainant alongwith interest at 15% p .a. from 13.2.91 till payment. The appellant will further pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Appeal partly allowed.