Rajasthan Housing Board vs MOHAN LAL BHARDWAJ

THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 21.6.2004 of the Rajasthan State Commission in Appeal No. 60/1996. The facts of the case are simple and are as follows:

SHRI Mohan Lal Bhardwaj, respondent/original complainant, had registered on 15.12.1980 with the Rajasthan Housing Board for allotment of an MIG-A (Middle Income Group) house plot admeasuring 7.5 m x 15 m. at Kota town by depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000 as registration fee. An MIG-A House is estimated to cost roughly Rs. 25,000. SHRI Bhardwaj was informed by the housing Board that in a lottery drawn on 6.6.1983, House No. 1 F-33 in Mahavir Nagar Ext. Scheme at Kota was allowed to him and that he should deposit a sum of Rs. 5,600 as site money. SHRI Bhardwaj deposited the said amount of Rs. 5,600 on 17.9.1983. Thereafter there has been no movement and SHRI Bhardwaj received an allotment letter on 31.3.1992 mentioning that he has been allotted a house/plot measuring 6 m. x 12 m. and that after taking into account the money already paid by him, he should pay an additional sum of Rs. 94,027 as the cost of the house. Aggrieved by this, Shri Bhardwaj approached the District Forum, Kota alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board. His main complaint was that two other persons who were allotted house-sites in the lottery drawn on 6.6.1986 were allotted House Nos. 1F-42 and 3F-35 in the same neighbourhood and were required to pay Rs. 50,558 and Rs. 51,446 respectively. Similarly another person, Mr. Purushottam Lal Sharma, who has also been allotted house plot in the same lottery draw dated 6.6.1983 was allotted a house of the same size i.e., 72 sq.m. on payment of Rs. 61,350.

The complainant, therefore, alleges that there was discrimination as far as he is concerned which amounted to deficiency in service. The District Forum accepted his argument and directed the Rajasthan Housing Board to allot him a 72 sq.m. house at the highest price paid by allottee from the same lottery, i.e., Rs. 61,350, Shri P.L. Sharma. The appeal of the Rajasthan Housing Board was dismissed by the Rajasthan State Commission. The Rajasthan Housing Board has now come in for revision against the said order.

WE have perused the record carefully and heard the arguments. The case of the revision petitioner is that the allotment of houses is done in two phases. The first phase was allotment of a plot. Since there were more applicants than the available plots, the method adopted was draw of lots. What was done on 6.6.1983 was a draw of lots for allotment of plots. There were over 500 plots allotted in Kota. It is not possible to construct 500 houses in one go or in a short time. It is further argued by the petitioner that the progress of construction of housing depends on availability of finances with the board and on various other factors. Once the houses are ready, another lottery is drawn to allot the completed houses. This lottery for allotment of houses is made half yearly or annually. It so happened that the house of Shri P.L. Sharma was ready in the year 1989 itself and hence he was charged the then prevailing cost of Rs. 61,350. However, in the case of respondent, Shri M.L. Bhardwaj, the house could only be completed in 1992 and by that time the cost had gone upto Rs. 1,09,360.81. Taking into consideration the amount already paid by him, he was asked by letter issued on 31.3.1992 to pay a sum of Rs. 94,207. It is further contended by the petitioner that the consumer Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on costs. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent is merely using the consumer Fora to obtain a house at less than its cost. We have considered the arguments of both the parties. While it is evident that 500 houses cannot be constructed in one go, the revision petitioner has not indicated any reasons as to why they should have taken as much as 10 years to complete the construction for which a draw of lottery was done as early as on 6.6.1983. Similarly, nowhere has any explanation been offered as to why after allotting a plot with a specific number, i.e., 1F-33, the house could not be constructed for 10 years. Most importantly, no explanation has been given as to how adjacent houses, 1F-42 and 3F-35 could be completed in 1988-89 itself, whereas no construction work was taken up on the respondent''s site.

AS correctly observed by the lower Fora, it is not the case where adjudication is being done about the cost of the house. This is a clear case of discrimination between two consumers for similarly placed, one being charged a particular amount and the other being charged more than double that amount. This certainly would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner. We do not, therefore, see any merit in the Revision Petition under Section 21(b) and there is no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission for us to interfere. The Revision Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.