RAJKUMARI KASLIWAL vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS complaint has been filed by Smt. Rajkumari Kasliwal against the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur wherein she has claimed that the demand of Rs. 1,66,031/- made by the Housing Board in its allotment-cum-possession letter was illegal and may b6 quashed. She had also prayed that the possession of the house should have been delivered by the Housing Board to the complainant either at the end of the year 1990 or in the beginning of the year 1991. The Housing Board delayed the allotment and delivery of possession by about two years. She has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- for this delay in the allotment.

THE complainant''s case is that she had got herself registered for MIG ''B'' category house with the Rajasthan Housing Board on 17.8.80 by depositing the registration amount of Rs. 4,600/-. As there was delay in allotment of the house, the complainant made an application for registration for a HIG-3 type house in Parijat Scheme floated by the Housing Board. She made an application for the purpose on 23.12.88 and deposited the balance registration amount of Rs. 25,400/- for registration under Parijat Scheme. This deposit of Rs. 25,400/- was made on 23.8.89. THE Housing Board registered the complainant under Parijat Self-Financing Scheme. It may be mentioned that Parijat Scheme of the Housing Board is a self-financing scheme. THE Rajasthan Housing Board thereafter issued a reservation letter in favour of the complainant dated 12.12.89. In this reservation letter the cost of the house of HIG-3 type category was mentioned as Rs. 1,95,000/-. THE complainant was required to deposit this amount by four instalments of Rs. 48.750/- each. In the amount of first instalment, the registration amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to be adjusted and the first instalment was thus of Rs. 18,750/-. THE complainant had to deposit this amount of first instalment upto 30.1.90. Remaining three instalments of Rs. 48,750/- each were required to be deposited by the complainant by 6.4.90,6.10.90 and 6.4.91. THE complainant duly deposited all these four instalments in time. Thus she deposited a total amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- with the Housing Board as mentioned in the reservation letter dated 12.12.89. Under Parijat Scheme floated by the Rajasthan Housing Board it was provided in Clause 7 that if a registered applicant had not made default in payment of instalments, the possession of the house will be delivered to him in two years. It is further provided that if the Housing Board is not able to deliver possession of the house to such applicant within two years, then the Board will pay interest to the applicant @ 6% p.a. after the expiry of the period of two years. The Housing Board issued allotment letter dated 22.2.93 to the complainant allotting to her House No. 4/94-A in Mansarovar, Jaipur. In this allotment letter year of allotment was mentioned as 22.5.92. In this allotment letter, after adjusting the payments made by the complainant, she was further required by the Board to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,03,210/-. However, later on an amended allotment letter dated 5.3.93 was sent to the complainant whereby she was required only to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,66,041/- instead of Rs. 2,03,210/-. The complainant thereafter filed the present complaint before this State Commission on 18.5.93 making grievance against the increase in the cost of the land and cost of construction of the house and also complaining of delay in making the allotment of House No: 4/94=A and claiming reliefs mentioned above.

The opposite party did not file any version despite service. The complainant has filed an affidavit in support of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. We have heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned Counsel for the opposite party.

IT may be mentioned that a third amended allotment letter has also been issued by the Housing Board on 29.6.93 whereby the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,58,903.43. The complainant had already deposited this amount on 27.5.93 in the Housing Board by challan dated 26.5.93. This deposit was made by the complainant under protest. Thereafter the complainant complied with other formalities like submitting of acceptance letter, undertaking and affidavit and she obtained possession of the house allotted to her on 30.7.93. Thus the complainant has obtained possession of the house allotted to her on 30.7.93. As already stated, the grievance of the complainant are two fold. First grievance is that in the reservation letter the cost of the house was mentioned as Rs. 1,95,000/- and instalments were fixed on the basis of that cost. However, when the house was allotted to the complainant by allotment letter dated 22.2.93, the complainant was further required to pay Rs. 2,03,210/- apart from the amount of Rs. 1.95.000/- which she had already deposited. This allotment letter was revised two times as mentioned above and by the latest revision the additional amount of Rs. 1,58,903.43. Thus the grievance of the complainant is about the increased cost of the house at the time of allotment. So far as the question of increased cost is concerned that seems to have occurred because there was delay in the construction and completion of the house. The National Commission has repeatedly held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to go into the question of costing. If the complainant is aggrieved from the costing of the house made by the Housing Board at the time of making allotment, she should seek her remedy in a Civil Court.

AS regards delay in the allotment of the house, it is clear that the reservation letter was issued to the complainant on 12.12.89. AS already been stated, under Parijat Scheme the house has to be allotted and possession delivered in two years. Thus the allotment and possession of the house should have been delivered to the complainant by 12.12.91. However, the Housing Board issued the allotment letter on 22.2.93, revised allotment letter on 5.3.93 and the other revised allotment letter on 29.6.93. Thus there was a delay of about 1% years on the part of the Housing Board in making the allotment of the house to the complainant and delivering its possession. This delay has not been explained in any way by the opposite party because it has not even filed a reply. The learned Counsel for the Housing Board relied upon Clause 7 of Parijat Scheme which provides that if the Housing Board is not able to deliver possession within two years, it shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. after expiry of the period of two years. In this regard it may be mentioned that if there is escalation in the cost price, the Housing Board, according to Clause 8 of this scheme, charges interest from HIG category house allottees @ 16% p.a. The amount deposited by a registered applicants has the same money value as the additional cost incurred by the Housing Board. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to interest @ 16% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1.95.000/- deposited by her with effect from 12.12.91 till the date of delivery of possession of the house to her on 30.7.93. The awarding of this interest is a reasonable compensation to the complainant for delayed delivery of possession. Before parting with this order, we deprecate the delay that is caused by the Rajasthan Housing Board in allotting the house beyond the stipulated period of two years. This delay burdens the allottees with additional cost. The Housing Board should keep its promises as contained in the scheme and also the price mentioned in the scheme except reasonable escalation which takes place during the period stipulated. We, therefore, partly allow this complaint and direct that the Housing Board will pay to the complainant interest @ 16% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- which had been deposited by the complainant in pursuance of the reservation letter. The interest will run from 12.12.91 to 30.7.93. The opposite party will further pay Rs. 2000/- as costs to the complainant. If interest @ 6% p.a. has already been adjusted in the allotment letter, the same will be given credit. The payment may be made to the complainant within two months. Complaint partly allowed with costs.