ROSHAN LAL vs SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant Roshan Lal against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 17.6.93 dismissing his Complaint Case No. 353/91 on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. Complainant had appeared on 7.6.95 but thereafter he did not appear.

WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-respondents and have perused the record of the District Forum. Admittedly the complainant had made application for allotment of a house in Udaipur. The application was made on 30.1.80 and the complainant had deposited Rs. 500/- as application fee and thereafter deposited Rs. 4100/-. The office of the Housing Board had registered the complainant. It issued a reservation letter to the complainant on 2.7.83. By this reservation letter the complainant was required to deposit two instalments of seed money of the amount of Rs. 6,000/- each. According to the complainant he sent a bank draft dated 1.8.83 of the UCO Bank, Udaipur to the Housing Board by registered post on 3.8.83 with respect to first instalment of seed money. The second instalment of seed money was deposited by him on 2.1.84. Despite that possession of the house was not delivered to the complainant. The complainant went to the office of the Resident Engineer, Udaipur who told to the complainant that he had not deposited the first instalment of seed money. In order to satisfy the opposite parties, the complainant produced a certificate regarding bank draft from UCO Bank and yet the opposite parties denied having received the amount of seed money. The complainant submitted a duplicate copy of the bank draft dated 28.3.86. After accepting the duplicate copy, the opposite parties issued allotment letter to the complainant wherein an amount of Rs. 6,600/- was levied as penalty on account of late deposit of first instalment of seed money. As the complainant had to obtain the possession of the house, he deposited the amount required in the allotment letter and obtained possession of the house on 9.9.86. Complainant filed a complaint before the Ditsrict Forum claiming compensation of delay in delivering the possession of the house, compensation for mental distress and agony and in addition for the refund of the amount of Rs. 6,600/- charged by the opposite parties as penalty. The opposite parties pleaded that they considered the deposit of the first instalment of seed money of Rs. 6,000/- on the date on which the amount was credited in the account of the Housing Board. It was also pleaded that the complainant had voluntarily deposited the amount asked for in the allotment letter and had obtained possession of the house on 9.9.86. It was stated that allotment letter had not been issued earlier because the complainant had not depos ited the first instalment of seed money. It was also pleaded that the cause of action had accrued prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It would appear from the above narration that the controversy between the parties was regarding the deposit of the amount of Rs. 6,000/- with respect to the first instalment of seed money by the complainant. The District Forum, Udaipur has accepted the version of the complainant that he had sent a bank draft No. 209663 dated 1.8.83 to the Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur by registered post. The complainant has also produced photo copy of the letter dated 2.8.83 along with the bank draft had been sent. He also produced the postal receipt dated 3.8.83 to show that the bank draft was sent by registered post to the Housing Board. Apart from that the complainant also produced a certificate issued by the Accountant of the UCO Bank, Udaipur Branch certifying that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- in the account of the Rajasthan Housing Board, collection account in the Branch of the Bank at Udaipur by demand draft drawn at Branch Office, Jaipur. It was also certified that the amount had been remitted to the Branch Office, B.P., Jaipur credited to the Rajasthan Housing Board account with them. Opposite party No. 2 did not accept even this certificate and thereupon the complainant submitted a duplicate draft to opposite party No. 2. It was after the submission of the duplicate draft that the Housing Board issued the allotment letter. The complainant had filed affidavit in support of his assertions. The opposite parties denied that the complainant had sent any bank draft. There is no reason to doubt the certificate and the postal receipt produced by the complainant under which the draft was sent to the office of the Housing Board at Jaipur. No one has filed any counter affidavit from the office of the Housing Board at Jaipur denying receipt of the Bank draft. It might be the negligence in the office of the Housing Board at Jaipur and we do not know as to what happened to the bank draft which was sent to the office of the Housing Board at Jaipur. So far as the complainant is concerned, he had sent the bank draft and the issue of the bank draft was certified by the UCO Bank. It is, therefore, clear that the amount of penalty was wrongly levied on the complainant. Why the complainant should have been asked to pay the penalty when the negligence was of the Rajasthan Housing Board in mishandling the bank draft sent by the complainant and compelling him to furnish a duplicate bank draft.

IT has already been stated that the complainant had deposited the amount required by the allotment letter and had obtained possession of the house on 9.9.96. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant on the ground that the complaint was filed on 10.9.91 and, therefore, it was a stale complaint and barred by limitation even under the ordinary law. The opposite parties had taken the plea that since the complainant had taken possession of the house on 9.9.96 i.e. before the coming into force the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint was not maintainable. This plea has no substance because even if a cause of action had arisen before coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint could be filed after the coming into force of the Act provided it was not a stale complaint. No doubt the complaint was a stale complaint because the complainant had deposited the amount on 9.9.96 and had obtained the possession of the house on that date and yet he filed the complaint after five years. The complaint being stale and we dismiss the complaint on that ground. However, we deprecate the attitude of the Housing Board that it charges penalty even from persons who had timely sent the seed money by a bank draft and penalises registered applicants even when the negligence is of the Rajasthan Housing Board itself. This case is a clear instance of such victimisation on the part of the Board. Complaint dismissed.