Rajasthan Housing Board vs Mahaveer Prasad

BOTH these appeals involve almost similar facts and questions of law and are being disposed of by a common order. Appeal No. 269/95 is against the order of the learned District Forum, Bhilwara dated 15.12.1994 and Appeal No. 365/95 is against the order dated 3.1.1995 of the District Forum, Bhilwara.

FACTS disposal for these appeals in brief are that the complainant in Appeal No. 269/95 Mahaveer Prasad had got a registration for allotment of a house constructed by the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter to be referred as the Board) under the Kalpataru Scheme of the Lower Income Category. He was issued a priority registration number on 11.10.1988 whereby he was to be allotted a constructed house within an area of 25 sq. mtrs. at a cost of Rs. 25,000/- which was to be paid in instalments. Though he deposited certain instalments in time but he was not allotted the house and ultimately he was allotted the house No. 7-E-45 in the year 1992 as disclosed in the letter of allotment and possession dated 26.2.1992. This house was allotted in Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bhilwara on hire purchase basis. The complainant opposed the demands of the amount in the aforesaid allotment letter. The complainant also complained about the use of sub-standard material in the construction of the house as also non-provision of a number of items and facilities as indicated in para 5 of his complaint. He approached the learned District Forum to seek a direction against the Board to deliver him the aforesaid house after affixing doors and windows and also making available complete residential facilities besides claiming an amount, of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. It was opposed by the Board contending therein that the house allotted to the complainant has been in accordance with the plan and structure and facilities which were promulgated by the Board and that the complainant cannot seek a direction to the effect that the house allotted to him should be with complete residential facilities including the fixtures etc. as detailed by him in the complaint. The learned District Forum however decreed the claim directing the Board to deliver to the complainant the aforesaid house within a period of one month after affixing doors and windows and also making available complete residential facilities besides awarding litigation costs amounting to Rs. 500/-. In Appeal No. 365/1995 the complainant Ramesh Chandra had been a registered applicant under the General Registration Scheme, 1981 of the Board for allotment of an MIG A category house. The cost of which was also originally declared as Rs. 25,000/- The complainant deposited the seed money as demanded by the Board in the year 1986 and thereafter on a draw of lots he was allotted a house No. 1-B-11 in the Gulabpura Scheme of the Board. The complainant complained about the sub-standard quality of material in the construction of the house as also non-provision of a number of facilities as detailed in the complaint. Finding that the Board has been insisting to take possession of the house in the aforesaid state of condition in pursuance of his letter dated 29.9.1989; arbitrarily rejected his allotment by its communication dated 14.6.1990 and also directing the complainant to get back his amounts deposited with the Board. The complainant, thereafter, approached the learned District Forum to give a direction to the Board to realise from him the actual cost of the house allotted to him and after putting it to a complete habitable and secure position after removing the defects and deficiencies pointed out by him besides demanding an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. The complaint was opposed by the Board and the same pleas were raised which have been raised in the case of Appeal No. 269/95 where the complainant has been Mahaveer Prasad The learned District Forum aceeded to the request made by the complainant and directed the appellant Board to issue a revised demand note within a week after getting the house completed and removing the deficiencies pointed out and also to deliver its possession within one month after affixing doors and windows and making available the facilities of electricity and water connections etc. besides litigation cost of Rs. 500/-, additional compensation of Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded to the complainant in this appeal.

Aggrieved now the Board has approached this Commission to quash the orders of the learned District Forum dated 15.12.1994 and 3.1.1995 respectively.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the respondent at great length and have examined the record in great detail in both the appeals. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the earlier decision of this Commission dated 15.5.2000 rendered in Appeal No. 41/95, R.H.B. v. Radhey Shyam ]hanwar & 4 Ors., appeals being Nos. 420/95, 1996/97, 1997/97 and 1998/97. On the basis of it the learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that neither the question of pricing and cost can be gone into by the Consumer FORA nor any directions can be given to the Board with a view to provide the fixtures and facilities in the houses allotted to the respondents when no discrimination has been done between the respondents and other similarly situated persons to whom the houses were allotted under the aforesaid Schemes. As against if the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent has been that any person who gets himself registered with the Rajasthan Housing Board to obtain a house constructed by it, to expect that the house allotted would be a incomplete and fully habitable stage along with all those facilities and fixtures and fittings which are a must for living in a suitable house. It has, therefore, been urged that the learned District Forum has not committed any error in awarding the reliefs as granted by it in each of these appeals and that the appeals deserve rejection.

WE have given due thought and consideration to the matter. It has been the consistent view of this Commission, the National Commission as also of the High Court of Rajasthan that matters relating to pricing/cost cannot be made a subject- matter of adjudication before the Consumer FORA unless it can be shown that the price/cost fixed/demanded by the Housing Board is higher and that too actuated out of deliberate or intentional act on the part of the Board. In this regard attention is drawn to a decision rendered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Bhai v. DDA, AIR SC 738, as also the decision of the National Commission in the case of Commissioner, Assam State Housing Board v. Manoj Kumar, II (1996) CPJ 47 (NC). Not only this but Hon''ble the Supreme Court has held in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, JT 1994 SC 292, "that there is no provision of law that mere drawal of lots vests an indefeasible right in the allottee for allotment of the price obtaining on the date of drawal of lots". The Supreme Court has further held that the price of rates prevailing at the date of communication of the allotment letter is applicable unless otherwise provided in the Scheme and where the allottees are not willing to accept the allotment at that rate; it is always open to them to decline the allotment. It is thus unquestionable that an allottee of a house constructed by an agency like the Rajasthan Housing Board has either to accept the allotment of the house or decline the offer and take back his money. The question whether an allottee of a house constructed by the Housing Board can insist to have the house finished in the way he wishes irrespective of the scheme and planning dimensions and basic needs to be provided has been (sic.) earlier also. In the appeals disposed of by this Commission vide its order dated 15.5.2000, R.H.B. v. Radhey Shyam jhanwar & 4 Ors., this Commission exhaustively dealt with the aspects of the grievance raised by the allottees pertaining to the sub-standard use of material and providing fittings and fixtures etc. beyond the terms and conditions disclosed by it while promulgating the scheme to allot constructed houses. Though the complainants/respondents have put their grievances pertaining to certain deficiencies and a few basic amenities as also use of sub-standard material in the construction of the house by the Board it cannot be denied that the letters of allotment-cum-possession issued to the respondents give clear details of the demands made by it under respective heads for each and every work and facility to be made available. The Board has initially given out the dimensions and areas of the houses to be allotted and also the extent of accommodation to be provided. It being the settled position of law that costing/price which has to be charged by the allottees of the houses; takes into consideration a number of factors which have been exhaustively dealt with in a decision of this Commission in Kishandas M. Inani v. R.H.B., II (1992) CPJ 923, and it has been held that the Consumer Disputes Redressal FORA under the Act have no jurisdiction to determine the validity or otherwise of the cost procedure followed by the Raj. Housing Board which has to take into consideration a number of elements/constituents which determine the final cost of the house. The costs initially indicated are a provisional cost. Moreover it is also undeniable that the proceedings before the Consumer FORA are summary in nature. This Commission in the case of R.H.B. v. Radhey Shyam Jhanwar & Ors. (supra) has laid down : "Questions with regard to the quality of construction, as also, regarding variations in specifications concerning measure- ments/area, various fittings and fixtures, use of sub-standard construction material and habitability of the houses delivered to the registered applicants/allottees cannot be effectively gone into in such proceedings. All these aspects involve a complicated question of facts, as also, of law, which require detailed enquiry/investigation after affording due opportunity to the litigating parties to enable them to lead relevant documentary and oral evidence and such an exercise can be done only by a competent Civil Court and not by any Consumer Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

In the cases under examination in Appeal No. 365/95 the respondent has virtually questioned the costing and pricing of the house besides seeking a direction to make availabl certain provisions and facilities which were not declared by the Board nor any amounts have been charged or demanded by it. In Appeal No. 269/95 the complainant Mahaveer Prasad has similarly sought a direction to make provision for fixing doors and windows and also to make complete residential facilities which has never been disclosed by the Board to be made available by it nor any specific amount have been declared and asked for in the letters of allotment-cum- possession issued to the respondent to pay any additional amount for them. In any view of the matter we are of the firm opinion that the learned District Forum has not appreciated the controversy raised between the parties in the correct perspective, more so when the complainants have been asking to provide certain facilities and fittings and fixtures which were not declared or promulgated by the Board to be made available. Moreover the question pertaining to the use of the sub-standard material in the construction of houses and the provision and non-provision of residential facilities which have not been declared to be made available by the Board cannot be sorted out and evaluated in the summary proceedings which are the rule of procedure of the Consumer FORA. All these aspects can be exhaustively dealt with and examined by a competent Civil Court after affording full and due opportunity to both the parties to adduce detailed oral and documentary evidence. We accordingly are of the view that the orders under challenge of the learned District Forum dated 15.12.1994 and 3.1.1995 respectively are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed.

CONSEQUENTLY while quashing the order of the learned District Forum in Complaint Case No. 49/92, Mahaveer Prasad v. R.H.B., decided on 15.12.1994, and in Complaint Case No. 50/91, Ramesh Chandra v. R.H.B. & Ors., decided on 3.1.1995, are hereby quashed and the appeals allowed. The complainants/respondents in each of the complaint are at a liberty to seek the redressal of their grievances raised by them in their complaints by approaching a competent Civil Court. In the facts and circumstances of the cases both the parties shall bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.