Ram Autar Agarwal vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

THIS appeal has been filed by Sri Ram Autar Agarwal, against the judgment and order dated 23.11.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 48/1998. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :

THE complainant, Sri Ram Autar Agarwal, R/o Rampur Garden, Bareilly in response to the registration scheme for houses floated by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad applied for registration of an HIG house. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- as registration amount was deposited on 25.2.1980 in Punjab National Bank, Bareilly. Accordingly a registration certificate was issued to him on 26.6.1980. THE complainant was registered in the first round of the scheme and was entitled to the allotment of an HIG house. His name was included in the first draw of lots but the allotment could not be made in his favour of the draw of lots. THErefore, he was entitled to be included in the draw of lots for allotment of an HIG house in the subsequent allotment. THE opposite party, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, enhanced the amount of registration from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and accordingly asked for an additional amount of Rs. 8,000/-. THE complainant deposited this additional amount of Rs. 8,000/- on 28.9.85 and a new registration certificate was issued in terms of the deposited amount of Rs. 15,000/-. THE opposite party stopped allotting houses to the registered persons and instead started selling the houses on cash payment basis to both the registered and unregistered persons. THE complainant had no house of his own in Bareilly town. On 30.9.1996 the opposite party Housing Board informed the complainant that in case he wants to retain the registration for HIG houses an amount of Rs. 35,000/- be deposited by him in addition to Rs. 15,000/- already deposited; otherwise the registration would be cancelled by 30.9.1996. Since the complainant did not deposit the amount by the date fixed by the opposite party, his registration was cancelled and the amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by him was returned to him alongwith 6% per annum interest as per rules of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. THE case of the complainant is that inspite of having been registered for 17 years, he was not able to get a house and his registration was cancelled without any valid reasons which is a deficiency on the part of the opposite party. THE complainant was compelled to take back Rs. 27,086/- as the refund amount (Rs. 15,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 12,086/- as interest at the rate of 6% per annum ). THE complainant claimed compound interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs. 15,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,27,390/-. The case of the opposite party before the District Forum was that the Housing Board had no land available for housing in Bareilly town and, therefore, had informed all the registered persons of Bareilly to opt for registration of houses in other towns of the State and for this purpose an extra amount of Rs. 35,000/- was demanded so that the registration could be transferred to the town of the choice of the complainants without any transfer fees, and it was also informed that those registered persons who are not interested in getting their registration transferred to other towns, can take back the amount deposited alongwith 6% interest. Accordingly the complainant, who did not opt for transfer, was also refunded the amount due to the complainant as per the rules of the Housing Board. Since the amount deposited has been refunded with interest, the complainant ceases to be a consumer and cause of action also ceases once the refund is made.

The District Consumer Forum, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED of this order, the complainant has come in appeal. In addition to the grounds stated in the beginning of the judgment, the appellant in the memo of appeal stated that at the time of registration, the opposite party had assured that the waiting period between the registration and the allotment may last about three years. The opposite party adopted unfair trade practice of allotment of houses in self financing scheme and gave houses to the persons who were registered in subsequent rounds ignoring the priority of the appellant who was registered in the first round. The HIG houses constructed at Bareilly far exceeded the number of applicants registered in the first round. In case the opposite party would have observed the seniority of the registration as principle of allotemnt, the appellant would have certainly got a house having been registered in the first lot. When the appellant came to know that the opposite party had changed the rule that allotment would be made only when the registered persons gave their consent to be included in the draw of lots and inspite of this the complainant gave his consent but the opposite party adopted the system of price auction. Therefore neither any draw was held nor the appellant was given any house. In the year 1996 the opposite party arbitrarily demanded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- payable by 30.9.1996 and wanted the complainant to opt for transfer to other cities. He had, therefore, no option but to obtain refund of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards registration fes which alongwith interest of 6% was refunded to him which the complainant accepted under protest although he had written to the Housing Board that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by him be returned alongwith 20% per annum interest compounded quarterly.

WE have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record. The complainant''s case is that being a registered person for HIG house, he was entitled for allotment of an HIG house. In this connection the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that mere registration does not entitle a registered person to the allotment of the house. The opposite party, Housing Board, registered persons for a particular scheme in order to enable it to construct as far as possible that much number of houses for which the registration is made. This is the ideal situation for any Board or Development Authority which makes the maximum satisfaction of the registered persons, but in case the number of registered persons is more than the number of houses built, then the only alternative available is the draw of lots among the registered persons. Since as per written statement of the opposite party before the Forum, the number of houses in Bareilly town were much less than the registered persons, therefore, the only alternative was draw of lots and unfortunately the complainant could not get the house in the draw of lots. The self financing scheme is a different scheme and does not cover the normal registered persons who have the option of having houses allotted to them and then pay either in instalments or on cash down basis. The complainant was, therefore, not entitled to allotment under the self financing scheme. Even in the self financing scheme if the number of persons registered under that particular scheme, the number of houses is less and the number of registered persons increases, the draw of lot has to take place and those unsuccessful are refunded the amount deposited by them under the rules of that particular scheme. In this case the complainant was not a registered person under the self financing scheme but was a registered person under the normal scheme of houses for an HIG house. A perusal of the evidence on record will show that the complainant is registered person for an HIG house in Bareilly vide registration certificate issued on 26.6.1990. The registration certificate indicates that it is a document which is issued to the person desirous of purchasing house from the Board. The certificate does not indicate the guarantee that those registered are bound to get the house or plots and that is why the provision exists for refund of the amount. In the event of the registered persons opting out of the scheme and also in the event of the Housing Board not in a position to provide the house in case it does not have one, the provision exists for the payment of interest as per rules of the Housing Board. The scheme for which the complainant is registered envisaged payment through instalments of 10 years. The case of the opposite party is that they could not cope up with the requirements of the registered persons in Bareilly and that is why they had given the choice to the registered persons in Bareilly to opt for similar scheme in other cities. The written statement clearly indicates this fact, as in the additional pleas taken by the opposite party in which it was stated that there was no land available in Bareilly and in case the registered persons do not opt for other cities, they are at liberty to take refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and that is why on 21.4.1997 the amount of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith interest totalling to Rs. 27,086/- was given through a cheque to the complainant. The simple matter in the case is that the complainant registered himself for allotment of an HIG house. He was not able to get the house for which he was registered, and therefore, on his demand the refund was made to him as per rules of the Housing Board. There is no provision for giving any compound interest and also higher rate of interest because the registered person as per scheme of the Housing Board can get interest as per rules of the Housing Board. In the circumstances, the District Consumer Forum, Bareilly was perfectly right in dismissing the complaint.

THE appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order THE appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 23.11.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 48/1998 are confirmed. Let copy be issued as per rules to the parties. Appeal dismissed.