RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD vs S.S. LODHA

Petitioner/Opposite party being aggrieved by impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ''State Commission'') has filed this revision petition.

Facts in brief, are that petitioner allotted H.No.3-Ta-20 to Respondent/Complainant on 23.8.1988 in Bapu Nagar Scheme, Bhilwara, on hire-purchase basis at the cost of Rs.47,400/-. Out of the said amount, after adjusting the amount already deposited by the respondent, he had been intimated to deposit a sum of Rs.9,431/- before taking possession. It is stated, that respondent deposited the said amount during the specified period on 06.09.1988. Soon thereafter, respondent obtained possession of the house from petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner intimated the respondent that on the basis of amount deposited by him, a total sum of Rs.40,820/- was outstanding against him which was to be deposited by 10.06.1991, so that No Objection Certificate could be issued. Respondent paid the said amount on 20.5.1992. Thereafter, respondent was asked by petitioner''s letter, dated 1.6.1992 to deposit a sum of Rs.15,910/- on account of delay in depositing the amount. Again, petitioner vide letter dated 5.5.1995 demanded a further sum of Rs.38,640/-. Thereafter, respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service by petitioner for issuing letters of demand from time to time, inspite of having recovered entire amount.

Petitioner in its written statement has stated, that respondent had not deposited the amounts in time which were demanded from him vide letter dated 31.5.1995. Therefore, amount of interest

was payable by him. The demand letters had been sent to the respondent thereafter, according to rules.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara, Rajasthan (for short, ''District Forum'') vide its order dated 19.12.1997 partly allowed the complaint and ordered that; " For the period from 31.5.1991 to 19.5.1992 the amount of interest and the amount of penalty according to rules might be calculated and the complainant be informed within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order and on receiving the information the complainant will deposit the said amount with the respondent in the following period of fifteen days and on such deposit being made in the next period of fifteen days the respondent will execute the sale deed with respect to H.No.3-Ta-20 in favour of the complainant and get the same registered. It is also ordered that the respondent will pay by way of compensation a sum of Rs.1,000/- and as sum of Rs.500/- as litigation expense of this case within a period of one month from the date of this order. The remaining of the complaint is disallowed ."

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the same vide its impugned order.

Hence, this Revision Petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondent, who has argued in person and perused the record.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, that both fora below have not properly considered petitioner''s letter dated 14.07.1995, vide which respondent had to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,820/- since there was mistake in calculation of the balance amount.

On the other hand it is stated by respondent, that he had already deposited a sum of Rs.15,910/- with petitioner vide Challan dated 11.2.2009. In addition, he also deposited a sum of Rs. 6,223/- with petitioner, vide Challan dated 13.2.2009. After deposit of the aforesaid amounts, conveyance deed has already been executed in his favour on 23.07.2010.

District Forum in its order dated 19.12.1997 held; " There is no dispute whatsoever on the question as to whether the complainant is consumer because the respondent has admitted the fact that residential house was allotted by the respondent board. The dispute is relating to the question as to whether after the complainant was intimated by letter dated 31.5.1991 of the respondent that he should deposit a sum of Rs. 40,820/- and when said amount had been deposited by the complainant on 19.5.1992 thereafter the respondent be letter dated 1.6.1992 stating therein that the complainant had not deposited the sum of Rs.40,820/- by 10.6.1991 and therefore additional amount of Rs. 15,910/-should be deposited by the complainant. Thereupon the complainant informed the respondents that by letter dated 1.6.1992 such demand being made by the respondent was not according to law. Then the respondent by letter dated 26.6.1992 informed the complainant that the above amount of Rs.15,910/- should be deposited forthwith. Thereafter, by letter dated

5.5.1995, the respondent intimated the complainant that the calculation had been made again with respect to the amount payable by the complainant and the total amount payable by him was Rs.38,640/- which should be deposited by the complainant. Again attention of the respondent was invited by the complainant towards error in the calculation and the respondent by letter dated 14.7.1995 intimated the complainant that on there being an error of principle in the calculation, the balance amount had not been properly calculated and in that letter he was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.39,970/-. According to the complainant he was given incorrect amounts alleging error in calculation which was wholly undesirable and discloses carefulness on the part of the respondent. On behalf of the complainant the said error has been termed as error or error committed on account of technical mistake and it has been disclosed that a sum of Rs. 39,970/- was payable by the complainant. In this connection the contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondent is that though the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.40,620/- on 19.5.1992 but because the amount had not been deposited in time interest, penalty interest on lease money had also been calculated and a sum of Rs.39,970/- was payable by the complainant. In this contention the calculation sheet regarding interest which has been submitted by the respondent that also does not clarify as to from which point of time to which point of time at what rate what amount by way of interest what is the amount of penalty has been calculated. As against this from time to time the complainant had been asked by the respondent to deposit different amounts of money as the amount of balance payable by him in an erroneous manner and the complainant was expected to deposit the same. This shows that there was error on the part of the employees of the respondent or carelessness of the officers of the respondent. When the respondent got a sum of Rs.40,320/- deposited by the complainant on 15.5.1992, the respondent has only this much right that the respondent can claim interest, penalty etc. for the delay caused in depositing the same. But the respondent is not entitled to claim any other amount from the respondent. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and we consider it proper to pass an order to the effect that if the complainant deposits interest for the period from 31.5.1991 to 19.5.1992 and penalty payable by him according to law for the period and that the respondent shall calculate the said amount within a period of fifteen days the respondent will execute sale deed with respect of H. No. 3-Ta-20 and get the same registered in favour of the complainant. The complainant will get a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.500/-as cost of this litigation from the respondent ."

State Commission, while affirming the order of District Forum observed; " In this case, there is no dispute that the respondent was allotted H. No. 3-Ta-20, situated in Bapunagar, Bhilwara by the appellant to the complainant on 23.08.1988 and he had been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.9,431/- towards the cost of the house. In this case it is also not in dispute that the complainant deposited the said amount on 6.9.1988 and obtained possession of the disputed house from the appellant.

It is also not in dispute in this case that the appellant intimated the complainant on 31.5.1991 that a sum of Rs.40,820/- was outstanding with respect to the house in question which was to be deposited by him upto 10.6.1991. In this case it is also not in

dispute, that the complainant did not deposit the said amount on 10.6.91 and deposited the same on 20.5.1992 therefore it is clear that the complainant respondent deposited the said amount after a delay of nearly one year and therefore appellant was entitled to recover interest from respondent according to rules and this has also been held to be correct by the Learned District Forum.

In this case after a period of four years the appellant for the first time on 5.5.1995 intimated the complainant that the information which had been given to him on 31.5.1991 regarding the balance amount suffered from calculation mistake, mistake being in the nature of mistake in principle and therefore the complainant was to deposit a further sum of Rs.38,640/- being the balance amount. In this connection the appellant has not given any sort of details. Otherwise also when possession had been given in the year 1988 different amounts had been shown to be outstanding at different times and before demanding the said amounts show cause notice had also not been given to the complainant.

In this manner on account of there being error in calculating sending letters of demand from time to time after eight seven years of possession being given amounts of deficiency in rending service and therefore there being no justification in the demand being made by the appellant vide letter dated 5.5.1995, the Learned District Forum had not committed any mistake either factually or legal in rejecting the demands made by the appellant as there was no propriety or basis for the same. In this case the complainant has not been intimated regarding the amount of money payable by him on account of delay in payment from 31.5.1991 to 19.5.1992 and on attempt has been made to recover the admitted amount from the complainant. In this manner the parties are put to unnecessary burden.

On the basis of the above discussion, in our opinion the order passed by the District Forum connot be said to be arbitrary or having been given without application of mind and there is no ground for interfering with the same. Therefore the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed ."

One of the ground taken by petitioner in this revision is that " This case is a case of mistake having crept while calculating the dues payable by the respondent ." Thus, admittedly there is a mistake on the part of the petitioner with regard to calculation of dues payable by the respondent.

Vide letter dated 31.5.1991, petitioner had asked the respondent to deposit balance amount of Rs.42,820/- till 10.6.1991. Since, respondent did not deposit the aforesaid amount, petitioner vide letter dated 1.6.1992 asked respondent to deposit an additional sum of Rs.15,910/- by 15.6.1992.

Respondent in response to aforesaid two letters, intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 3.8.1992, that in the year 1991 he had requested the Engineer of Housing Board, Bhilwara to intimate him as to what amount is due towards him. In response, petitioner vide its letter dated 31.5.1991 intimated the respondent, that balance amount of Rs.40,820/- is due towards him. Thereafter, respondent vide letter dated 3.8.1992, intimated the petitioner that he has deposited a sum of Rs.40,820/-with delay of 111/2 months and has also asked the petitioner to issue ''No Due

Certificate''. However, petitioner vide letter dated 1.6.1992, asked respondent to deposit an additional sum of Rs.15,910/-. In this manner respondent had asked the petitioner, as how could interest of 111/2 months comes to Rs.15,910/- and sought information in this regard.

Thereafter, petitioner vide letter dated 14.07.1995 asked the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.39,970/- by 15.08.1995.

Thus, it is clearly established from the record that petitioner had taken about three years in responding to letter dated 1.6.1992 sent by the respondent. Even otherwise, both fora below have categorically held that no detail of amounts asked for has been given by the petitioner at all.

It would be pertinent to note that petitioner itself has admitted that petitioner is at fault in this case. Therefore, petitioner cannot shift burden of its own negligence on the respondent. Moreover, there are concurrent finding of facts given by both fora below.

It is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. This Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission only where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed; " Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora " .

Moreover, respondent has placed on record copy of conveyance deed dated 23.7.2010 executed by petitioner in its favour. According to it, house in question has already been allotted to the respondent. Thus, petitioner has no case at all and the present petition without being any legal merit stand dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only).

Petitioner is directed to deposit cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission within four weeks. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

List on 18 September, 2015 for compliance. th