RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD JAIPUR vs Veer Singh Mehta

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 29th June, passed by the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur upholding the order of the District Forum, Jaipur dated 22.6.92 but reducing the compensation by Rs. 2,100/ - from the special damages of Rs. 23,900/ - awarded by the District Forum.

THE facts as found by the District Forum, Jaipur and upheld by the State Commission may briefly be noticed. The Rajasthan Housing Board (for short called Board) - Opposite Party started General Registration Scheme for allotment of builtup houses/flats. The complainant got himself registered for a builtup house for Lower Income Group at Jaipur vide Application No. H. 4/6438/JPR/T/73. The complainant subsequently got his registration converted from Lower Income Group to Middle Income Group -B and deposited Rs. 4,500/ - on 28.1.1980 as additional registration charges. The Complainant was informed by the Board that his priority in MIG -B Category house is 125. The Board called upon the Complainant in its letter dated 19.5.87 to deposit the seed money in two instalments of Rs. 6000/ - each. The instalments were duly deposited by the Complainant on 2.6.87 and 2.11.87 within the time allowed by the Board. A draw of lots was held by the Board in the year 1987/1988, but the name of the Complainant was not included in the lottery for the reason that the receipt of deposit of instalments for seed money had not reached in the office of the Board. The Complain ant made a representation on 7.4.88 against the non -inclusion of his name in the draw of lots due to the negligence of the Board. The representation was accepted and the Board by its resolution decided to allot house No. 47/67 to the Complainant and a letter dated 23.11.88 was sent to the Complainant to that effect. When the Complainant went to see the house it was found that the house had already been allotted and in possession of a third person. The Complainant represented once again. Consequently the Board vide its letter dated 19.7.89 allotted house No. 119/84 which was MIG -A Category house. The Complainant again represented and ultimately the Board by allotment letter dated 19.1.91 allotted another house No. 119/329 to the Complainant. In this allotment letter, the plot cost was mentioned as Rs. 22,773.00 and cost of construction as Rs. 71,245/ - and extra cost Rs. ,761/ -. The Complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 22,421/ - before 14.3.91. The amount was duly deposited on 19.2.91 by the Complainant and the possession of the house was delivered to the Complainant on 11.3.91. 3. The Complainant alleged in his complaint gross negligence of the Board in not including the name of the Complainant in the draw of lots in the year 1987 -88, perpetuation of the negligence in allotting house No. 47/67 which was already in possession of some other person, repeating the same folly in allotting House No. 119/84 in MIG -A Category and ultimately allotting House No. 119/329 to the Complainant by charging cost in vogue on 7.8.90 because in the allotment letter the year of allotment is mentioned as 7.8.90. The Complainant sought several reliefs alleging negligence of Board and deficiency in service. The District Forum granted relief by directing the Board to recover from the Complainant only the amount equal to the amount recovered from allottees of MIG -B Houses who were allotted houses in November, 1988. The District Forum also granted interest to the Complainant at the rate of 13% per annum upto 16.2.91 on the excess amount recovered from the Complainant. The District Forum also granted special damages of Rs. 23,900/ - being the amount of rent of Rs. 19,100/ - that the Complainant could have got and a sum of Rs.4,800/ - being the amount of rebate in the income -tax which the Complainant would have got. The Complainant was also awarded Rs. 500/ - as costs. The State Commission upheld the finding of fact and gross negligence on the part of the Housing Board in the matter of allotment to the Complainant. It was held that who else is responsible for the increase in the cost of the house than the concerned employees or officials of the Rajasthan Housing Board itself and naturally, therefore, they alone had to bear the brunt of their gross negligence and not the complainant who had been throughout faithfully complying with all the requirements of registration, reservation and proper allotment. The State Commission upheld the Order of the District Forum but reduced the quantum of damages by a sum of Rs. 2.100/ - only.

WE have heard Mr. Badridas Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner herein and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent -Complainant and have gone through the records. On the finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission as noticed by this Commission in the earlier part of the order, the gross negligence of the Board is writ large on the record. The grounds of revision also do not question the concurrent finding of negligence on the part of the Board. The feeble argument of Mr. Badridas Sharma that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Board is thus stated to be rejected. The main submission of Mr. Badridas Sharma is that the State Commission as well as the District Forum committed material illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction in awarding damages for the period of about two years on the ground of alleged loss of rent which the Complainant could have realised from the house during the said period. The contention is that the amount of loss of rent claimed as damages is too remote besides there being no evidence of the market value of the rent of the house during that period. The further submission is that the FORA below have committed illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction in awarding interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the difference of the cost of the house and at the same time awarding damages by way of non -receipt of rent. It is also contended that the award of damages of Rs. 4,800/ - in lieu of rebate on the alleged ground of the income tax is also without jurisdiction.

UNDER Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer FORA, in our view, have jurisdiction to grant the reliefs mentioned therein, inter alia, to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by a consumer due to the negligence of the Opposite party. The Complainant thus had to establish by cogent and convincing evidence as to the quantum of rent which a willing tenant would have paid for the house if it had been allotted to the Complainant in the year 1988 when allotments were made to similar persons. No evidence was placed on the record as to what was the amount of rent for MIG - B Category house recovered by the other allottees during the relevant period. Again it is hypothetical that if the price of the house had been recovered from the Complainant in time, he would have come in the category of income -tax payee and as such rebate of income of an amount of Rs. 4,800/ - would have been allowed to the Complainant for the two years under Section 80 -C of the Income -tax Act. The award of compensation to a consumer is to be determined on the basis of actual loss or injury suffered by the consumer. Mr. Badridas Sharma is right in his submission that there is clear illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction in awarding interest as well as damages by way of non -receipt of rent. The compensation to a Complainant that is usually awarded by the Consumer FORA is the grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the excess price recovered from the Complainant upto 16.2.91. The Revision Petition is allowed to this extent. The award of compensation to the extent of Rs. 23,900/ - by the District Forum as modified by the State Commission is set aside. The direction of the District Forum as endorsed by the State Commission is upheld that the Board shall recover the price of the house as per the cost recovered from the persons registered for the houses in terms of the letter of allotment near about 24.11.88. The compensation awarded to the Complainant would be equivalent to the interest at the rate of 18% on the excess price recovered from the complainant upto 16.2.91. The Housing Board shall calculate the amount due and call upon the Complainant within two months to adjust, if any, the amounts. On the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings. Revision Petition allowed.