Ratan Prakash vs BHAGWAT VALLABH SHARMA

THIS appeal under Section 15, C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act) by an opposite party is directed against the order dated 1.8.2002 whereby, District Forum, Kota, allowed respondents Complaint No. 257/2000 and directed the appellant to either allot a residential house to him or to refund the amount with interest and pay compensation and cost to him.

THE relevant facts are these : Bhagwati Ballabh Sharma, the complainant-respondent had got himself registered with the appellant Housing Board for allotment of a residential house of MIG(B) category to him under their KALPATRU Yojna. THE special features of this Yojna were that the registered applicants shall have to pay monthly instalments of specified money, which will carry compound interest @ 9% p.a., till the period of allotment of a house to them which was guaranteed to be allotted with a period of 10 years positively. At the time of allotment of the house, if some amount was found to be still due to be deposited, the appellant-Board would require the allottee to deposit the same in lump-sum or to pay the same in instalments under Hire Purchase Scheme. For that purpose the appellant Board was to assist the allottee to obtain required amount of loan from Financial Institutions. But change from Kalpatru Yojna to Hire Purchase Scheme could be made at the option of the allottee only. The case put forth by the respondent in his complaint filed before the District Forum was that he had duly deposited the registration amount of Rs. 6,000/- on 27.12.1990 and thereafter further paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- during the period from July 1991 to June 1992 through monthly instalment, but after June 1992 the appellant stopped sending to him the challans, required to deposit the monthly instalments, instead, without any intimation to and consent of the respondent, the appellant changed his scheme (Kalpatru) to another Scheme and vide demand notice dated 29.7.1999 (Ex. 8) required him to deposit Rs. 1,18,000/- in three instalments within the time specified therein failing which he shall have to pay interest @ 20% p.a. on the outstanding amount. The respondent did not accept this unilateral change in his scheme of allotment of a house to him and vide his letter dated 27.7.1999 (Ex. 9), required the appellants to tell him the reasons for their taking unilateral decision to change his category. But since the appellants did not respond to his querries, he filed the complaint before the District Forum.

The appellants, in answer to the complaint filed by the respondents against them, vaguely averred that a house to the respondents would be allotted as and when his turn by seniority would arrive. It was claimed that the complaint was pre-mature.

AFTER having examined the relevant provisions of the Kalpatru Scheme and the correspondence exchanged between the parties in sufficient detail the District Forum pointed out that as per terms and conditions between the parties the appellants had guaranteed to provide a house to the respondent within 6 to 10 years and relying upon such promise of the appellants he had deposited not only the registration amount but had also paid the monthly instalments from July 1991 to June 1992 and thereafter the appellants had stopped sending challans to him. The District Forum observed that the appellants changed the scheme unilaterally and on querry from the respondent did not even tell him the circumstances attending upon the change and also of his seniority number either in the Kalpatru Yojna and/or the changed scheme. The District Forum, therefore, held that the appellants had rendered deficient services to the respondent and awarded relief to him in the following manner : xxx xxx xxx xxx Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and examined the material on the record of the Forum.

THE appellants could not challenge the facts stated above. It could also not be explained by them as to why respondents entitlement for allotment of a house in the Kalpatru Yojna was changed to other scheme. THE appellants could not even disclose as to whether Kalpatru Yojna was still in existence and in force and if so what was respondents seniority number or if the same has already been closed, what could be the position of the respondent in allotting a house to him. In paras 8 and 8(1) of the Kalpatru Yojna it was stated that since the cost of construction of the house would increase during the period of 10 years, there would be gradual increase in the amount of monthly instalments payable by the registered applicants. For the category of the respondent such monthly instalment gradually increased from Rs. 400/- p.m. for the first year to Rs. 850/- p.m. in the last year to be arrived at in the 10th year. In sub-para 2 of para 8 it was stated that in the manner stated in sub-para 1 of para 8 that the total deposits of the registered applicants for MIG B category during the period of ten years would be Rs. 1,13,780/- inclusive of interest of Rs. 38,789/- accrued and payable by the appellants and the amounts of the monthly instalments totalling to Rs. 75,000/-. By June 1992 the respondant had already made deposit of Rs. 80,000/- inclusive of Registration amount of Rs. 6,000/-. In para 3(2), the appellants had promised to pay compound interest @ 9% p.a. on deposits made by the registered applicants. In para 6(2) the rates of interest payable on the amount of Registration year after year had been mentioned. When the conducts of the parties are read in the light of these terms and conditions of the agreement between them, it is noticed that whereas the respondent had practically performed the major part of the contract, which was to be performed by him, the appellant had performed no substantial part. Rather, after having realised almost the entire sale consideration from him, they changed the scheme without any notice to him and without obtaining his consent/option in doing so. THE appellants are thus found not only to have rendered deficient services to the respondent in the matter of allotment of a house to him but also adopted unfair trade practice in their dealings with the consumers of their services for consideration. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to modify the impugned order to the following extent only : (1) Interest payable on refundable amounts to the respondent would be at the rates specified in para Nos. 3(2) and 6(2) of the Kalpatru Yojna. (2) Amount of compensation payable to the respondent for mental agony, physical discomfort and harassment is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. (3) Order of the District Forum as to costs is maintained. (4) In the event of failure to comply with the order of the District Forum, as modified by us above, within a period of three months from the date of service of this order upon the appellants, the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed with cost at Rs. 5,000/-.

Appeal dismissed.