Rajasthan Housing Board vs RAN KAUSHAL SINGH

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant got himself registered for allotment of a residential house of MIG-B category on ''hire-purchase'' basis at Bhilwara on 27.8.1984. When no allotment of any house was forthcoming, the complainant made a prayer to the petitioner on 20.4.1993 that they may be allotted a house in Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara and he was willing to get the allotment on ''out-right'' sale basis. While the petitioner allotted House No. 1-E-23 in Chandrashekhar Azad Nagar, Bhilwara on ''out-right'' sale basis, but after making the demanded payment, the complainant found this to be skeleton house and not a completed house. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint as follows: "Therefore, complaint filed by the complainant against opposite party is disposed of in such a way that relief prayed by complainant is not possible but in justice we order that if complainant submits application for refund of deposited amount then opposite party within 1 month of receiving of application will refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest of 12% p.a. As aforesaid this complaint is finally disposed of and seeing the facts and circumstances parties shall bear their own costs."

Aggrieved by this order both the parties filed appeal before the State Commission, who disposed of both the appeals as under: "1. Parties shall appear before the District Forum, Bhilwara on 31.8.2004 in order to enable them to appear on that date the pronouncement of this order shall be duly notified to the Counsel for both the parties today or by the end of this week positively. The copies of this order shall be duly forwarded to the parties as per rules, and the record of the District Forum, sent, back to it, as early as possible.

Looking to the history of this litigation, the Resident Engineer and the Estate Manager RHB, whosoever, might be holding those offices presently or on the date fixed above, are hereby requested in their individual, personal and official capacities to appear in person before the District Forum on the above-mentioned date and assist the District Forum to get the possession of the allotted house to the complainant delivered. Their valuable co-operation for redressal of the genuine grievance is earnestly solicited in this behalf. As per order of the District Forum the Resident Engineer and Estate Manager would be personally responsible for making delivery of possession of the allotted house to the appellant within seven days of such order positively with information to the District Forum. The Forum may even fix a date for that purpose with consent of both the parties.

In the event of non-appearance of the Resident Engineer and the Estate Manager in person before the District Forum on the date fixed above and the appellant appearing before it, the District Forum shall appoint a Local Commissioner at the expenses of the appellant which would be later on realised from the above mentioned officers personally, for effecting the delivery of the possession of the allotted house to the appellant and submit his compliance report to the District Forum.

After compliance of the above interim order of the Commission and such other interim orders as may be passed by the District Forum in its effort to settle the dispute between the parties relating to delivery of possession of allotted house to the appellant, the District Forum shall proceed to finally determine the liability of the appellant regarding of cost of the house in the light of the observations made and findings recorded herein above and arguments advanced by the parties before it.

In case the District Forum notices that the interim orders, as passed hereinabove by us and as may be passed by the District Forum hereinafter, have not been complied with and are disobeyed the Forum, may, in its discretion, get such orders enforced by initiation of proceedings under Section 25(1) and/or 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against erring and the defaulting officers in their individual and personal capacities.

At the time of finally deciding the complaint, the District Forum shall pass appropriate orders as to cost and compensation to be awarded to the party, who, in its opinion, is found entitled to such cost/compensation, if any."

On the case being remanded to the District Forum, the District Forum after hearing the parties and after delivery of the possession in the presence of Commissioner appointed by him, directed the respondent/complainant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,15,000 in 156 monthly instalments as per original allotment letter along with the direction that the petitioner shall pay Rs.1,100 as cost of Commissioner already paid by the complainant, as also awarded Rs. 5,000 compensation and Rs. 3,000 as cost. Aggrieved by this order petitioner filed an appeal before the State. Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

THIS revision petition has been filed with a delay of 94 days and the ground taken for condonation of delay is sought to be condoned by giving following explanation: "2. That the delay has been caused on account of time spent in getting the Hindi documents translated into English; in this case, even the judgment of the Hon''hle State Commission is in Hindi.

Earlier judgement of Hon''hle State Commission was also necessary; delay was also caused in getting the copy of the said judgment from Bhilwara. The said copy was received on 20.8.2007."

We have very carefully gone through these grounds for condoning the delay. Nothing has been shown as to what was the time taken for getting the material translated? We are unable to appreciate this ground for the simple reason that as per law, the petitioner had 90 days to file the petition and if they could not get the order/documents translated within 90 days and file the revision petition, this cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. It is not disputed that the order was within the knowledge of the petitioner and the order passed by the State Commission on 13.2.2007. The plea taken is that, "delay was also caused in getting the copy of the said judgment from Bhilwara", if the party is negligent or careless in getting the copy, it cannot be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we do not find that the delay has been sufficiently explained in view of which, we see no merit in this application and hold this revision petition filed before us being time-barred. Even on merits, we see that the allotment letter dated 31.10.1994, nowhere mentions that whatever is being offered will be a skeleton house and not a complete house. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was candid enough to admit this omission, which in my view, could be said to be fatal to their case. Incidentally, what was granted by the District Forum and State Commission is to direct the payment of Rs. 1,15,000 in 156 instalments as per the allotment composition letter referred to earlier. There is no disputing the fact that the total cost of the complete house was Rs. 2,12,054 and after catering for all the amounts mentioned in this letter what was payable by the complainant was Rs. 1,59,376. It is also not in dispute that Rs. 44,376 were payable before taking over the possession, leaving an amount of Rs. 1,15,000 payable in 156 monthly instalments. It is also not in dispute that what was offered was a skeleton house and not a completed house. Since this was contra the allotment letter, the complainant was justified in not taking the possession as he was looking for a completed house.

IN the circumstances discussed earlier, the petitioner cannot ask for more amount than mentioned in the allotment letter and that is what has been ordered to be given by the complainant to the petitioner. Petitioner should be satisfied that the complainant has not been given interest on the deposited amount, as also rent etc. spent by him on account of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner - by offering a skeleton house in lieu of a completed house. IN my view, the complainant would have been entitled to exemplary compensation. Possession has been given after almost 10 years of the time of eligibility of the complainant in terms of the letter of possession-cum-allotment

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this revision petition, hence the revision petition is dismissed both barred by limitation as well as on merits. R.P. dismissed.