Rajasthan Housing Board vs Prakash Chand Jain

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajasthan Housing Board against order passed by State Commission of Rajasthan in Appeal No. 1286/1987.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent before us had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur, alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner Board. The complainant has got himself registered with the petitioner Board for a house in 1989 for which he deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 27.2.1989 but later on opted for a Self Financing Scheme and deposited a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 12.1.1990. The Board issued a reservation letter and asked the complainant/respondent to deposit the tentative cost of the house in four instalments, out of which two instalments were deposited by him on 31.1.1994 and 30.4.1994. In the meantime the Board issued a letter of allotment on 30.6.1994 and asking the complainant/respondent to deposit Rs. 1,13,630/- within three months. Since he did not deposit this amount the Board issued letter on 15.7.1995 asking the complainant/respondent to deposit the amount by 31.7.1995. Against this letter the complainant/respondent went to the High Court who directed the Board for calculation of interest in accordance with law. Pursuant to this order, the Board communicated the interest amount as Rs. 7,133/- and asking the complainant/respondent to deposit Rs. 1,06,497/-. The Board found some mistake in the calculation of interest and after reworking, indicated the correct interest amount as Rs. 11,110/-. By this letter Board asked the complainant/respondent to deposit Rs. 1,02,530/- which was duly deposited by him on 16.4.1996. On the same day the Board demanded a further amount of Rs. 31,742/- as interest for delay in depositing the amount by 565 days. The Board also demanded certain other small amounts as lease money as also interest on this amount as well. It is against this that the complainant/respondent approached the District Forum who ordered delivery of possession, and ordered compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as costs against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner Board which was only partly allowed i.e. the State Commission reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 50,000/-. Both the lower Courts after perusing material on record and hearing the arguments of both the parties did not agree with the revised calculation of interest made by the Board.

It is in these circumstances that the petitioner Board has filed this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Board who argued that the State Commission erred in not accepting the revised amount of interest as worked out by the petitioner Board. According to him the State Commission also erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant/respondent as the Board was not at fault at any time. It was the complainant/respondent who was at fault as he had not deposited the amounts asked for by the Board.

AFTER perusal of material on record we find that the complainant/respondent had deposited all the instalments-some delayed, -but since interest, as calculated and communicated by the petitioner Board was deposited on 16.4.1996, the contract is completed. Nothing gets left for the Board to not to deliver the possession. But this is not what it does. Instead it makes a third calculation and demands revised interest. Instead of forcing people like the complainant to knock at the doors of Consumer Fora, the petitioner Board need to put its own house in order. How many calculations are required to be worked out and communicated to the hapless consumer/house applicant ? There has to be some tenacity in such cases. We are in complete agreement with the reasoned findings of the both the lower Foras. In this case, we are also in full agreement with them for award of compensation for harassing the complainant/respondent needlessly/endlessly especially, when after full payment, as worked out by the Board was fully paid on 16.4.1996, and, possession is delivered full four years and three months later. We do not find any merit in the petition and dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Petition dismissed with costs.