SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD vs ASHA ASWANI

THIS appeal has been filed by the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and the Housing Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Ajmer against the order of the District Forum, Ajmer dated 19.9.95 whereby the District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 3,000/- which had been deposited by the complainant alongwith interest as per rules and further to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.

ADMITTED facts are that the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs. 3,000/- on 26.10.81 and 5.7.82 for registration of a M.I.G. Category A house at Ajmer under General Registration Scheme, 1981. The office of the Rajasthan Housing Board at Ajmer registered the complainant for the above category house and assigned her priority No. 462. On 6.2.87 the office of the Housing Board intimated to the complainant that there was acute shortage of water at Ajmer and, therefore, it was possible that there might be delay of 5-7 years in constructing the houses. The office of the Housing Board gave an option that the complainant could either take the amount deposited by her back or wait for 5-7 years for the house. The complainant opted to wait for the house. According to the complainant, she was assured that she would be required to pay 45% cost of the house in cash and the remaining 55% cost of hire-cum-purchase basis. Despite that the Housing Board was demanding the entire cost of the house in lumpsum in cash. According to the General Registration Scheme, the cost of the house was mentioned as Rs. 25,000/- and the amount of seed money was Rs. 3,600/-. Now the Housing Board had increased the amount of seed money to Rs. 25,000/- and have not disclosed the cost of the house. The com plainant states that under the Scheme, 55% of the cost of the house was payable by the allottee in 144 instalments. First instalment of the seed money was to be deposited in three months but now the Board is requiring the complainant to deposit the first instalment of seed money within one month and a letter dated 11.11.94 in this regard was received by the complainant on 21.1.94. The office of the Housing Board required the complainant to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as the first instalment of seed money Rs. 7,500/- in second instalment and Rs. 7,500/- in third instalment as against the declared amount of Rs. 3,600/- as seed money. The complainant states that the Housing Board is not entitled to unilaterally change the stipulations mentioned in General Registration Scheme. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the letter of the Housing Board dated 11.11.94 may by quashed. The Housing Board may be directed to allot to the complainant house on hire-cum-purchase basis. It may be directed to charge seed money in accordance with the stipulations mentioned in the General Registration Scheme with first instalment of seed money to be paid within 3 months. The Housing Board may be directed to disclose the cost of the house and the period upto which the house will be allotted. Lastly , it has been prayed that the Housing Board may be directed to pay compound interest @ 2% on the amount deposited by the complainant for the last 13 years period. The opposite parties in their version states that the seed money amount of Rs. 3,600/- was mentioned in the Scheme according to the estimated cost of the house at the time of registration. On account of the fact that there were several applicants for registration of houses and there was shortage of water in Ajmer, it has taken time to allot houses. During this period cost of building material had increased considerably and it was not possible to allot the houses at the cost estimated in General Registration Scheme. The Housing Board was entitled to charge actual cost of the house as at the time of allotment. It has also been stated that as the proportion of applicants for allotment of houses on hire-cum-purchase basis had considerably increased, allotment of houses on hire-purchase-basis was postponed and the applicants were provided facility to obtain loan from financial institutions and deposit the entire cost of the house to entitle them for allotment of the houses.

The District Forum held that the complainant had applied for registration of house in State Government Employees'' quota on hire- cum-purchase basis. In the year 1987 the Housing Board had assured the complainant of allotment of house in 5-7 years. Now the office of the Housing Board has told to the registered applicants for houses under hire-cum-purchase basis to make full payment of the cost of the house in cash. The District Forum held that the Housing Board cannot escape from its liability to allot a house to the complainant on hire-cum-purchase basis. It was observed that the Housing Board had failed to pursue the objectives for which the Board was constituted and that there was deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the above mentioned order. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that houses could not be allotted to the registered applicants in Ajmer on account of shortage of water. There was no agreement mirror and therefore, the double payment demanded by the respondent was not warranted and which put her to loss. No where the respondent has refuted the content of the above noted letter from Karnataka Transport Authority. Thus it shows that mirror is not compulsory at the time of registration. The consumer may fit it while using the scooter on road subsequently. In view of the above tact the respondent is definitely violating the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) of the MRTP Act. between the parties regarding the year in which the house would be allotted. The Scheme contained tentative statements. IT was also submitted that mere registration did not entitle the complainant to the allotment of the house. Lastly, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service. We have given our due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. It was not in dispute that the complainant had applied for registration under General Registration Scheme, 1981 for a house of MIG A category in hire-cum-purchase basis and he deposited a total amount of Rs. 3,000/- in two instalments of Rs. 1800/- and Rs. 1200/- respectively on 26.10.82 and 5.7.82. The office of the Housing Board at Ajmer drew a lottery for assignment of seniority amongst the applicants and informed the complainant by its letter dated 19.2.86 that the complainant had been registered for a house of MIG A category on hire-cum- purchase basis and her seniority was 462. Thereafter on 7.2.87 the Housing Board sent a letter to the complainant that on account of water shortage at Ajmer it was not possible to allot the house. The complainant was given an option either to get the amount deposited by her refunded or to wait for 5-7 years when it would be possible for the Board to allot the house. The complainant opted to wait for the house. It was on 11.1.94 that the Housing Board sent a reservation letter to the complainant. In this reservation letter the Assistant Estate Manager mentioned that a house has been reserved for the complainant and the complainant was required to deposit the seed money in three instalments of Rs. 10.000/-. Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 7,500/-. The first instalment of the seed money was payable within one month, second instalment within 7 months and the third instalment within 13 months. It was further mentioned that the applicants can obtain loan from H.D.F.C. and other financial institutions and they will have to pay the entire cost of the house at the time of allotment.

IN the General Registration Scheme issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board in the year 1981 in its Clause 2.4 it was mentioned that 40% of the houses to be constructed would be for persons employed in Government and Private Establishments and Public Enterprises. 24% houses would be constructed for reserved categories. The balance would be unreserved. It was also mentioned in Clause 2(4) (kha) that 45% houses constructed will be allotted on cash payment basis and 55% houses of hire-cum-purchase basis. The registration amount of MIG A category house was mentioned in Clause 2.7 as Rs. 3,000/-. The seed money required to be deposited was specified as Rs. 3,600/-. The seed money was to be paid in two instalments. First INstalment was to be deposited within 3 months of the reservation letter and the second instalment within 7 months of the reservation letter. As already been stated, the complainant was registered for a MIG A category house on hire-cum- purchase basis. It may also be stated that in schedule K enclosed to the Scheme, the estimated cost of MIG A category house was given as Rs. 25,000/-. From the reservation letter it appears that the total amount of the seed money was increased by the Housing Board from Rs. 3.600/- to Rs. 25.000/-. Apart from that, while the first instalment of the seed money under the Scheme was to be deposited in three months of the reservation letter, the Housing Board required the complainant to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 10,000/- of the seed money within one month. The total cost of house was not disclosed in the reservation letter. It may further be mentioned that while the registration was on hire-cum-purchase basis in the reservation letter it was mentioned that the complainant will have to deposit the entire cost of the house and for that she could take loan from HDFC or other financial institutions. Having registered the complainant for MIG A category house on hire-cum-purchase basis and having assigned to her priority No. 462 for a house of MIG A category on hire purchase, the Rajasthan Housing Board could not change her registration on cash payment basis of the entire cost of the house. It is the Housing Board which delayed the reservation. The reason assigned for the delay was that there was acute shortage of water at Ajmer and, therefore, the complainant was informed that she would have to wait for 5-7 years for the house. The cost of construction of the house increased considerably after registration and upto the date of issue of the reservation letter. That might have been the reason for increasing the amount of the seed money from Rs. 3,600/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The Consumer Forum cannot go into the question of costing. But it is quite clear that the Housing Board wrongly required the complainant to pay the entire cost of the house in lumpsum instead of on hire-cum-purchase basis. The Housing Board could not alter the registration of the complainant for a house on hire-cum-purchase basis to cash payment basis. The first instalment of the seed money was also to be deposited within 3 months as per the Scheme and not within one month. There was thus deficiency in service on the above two grounds on the part of the Housing Board. It is unfortunate that while the Housing Board had been constituted to meet the growing need of the people for housing accommodation, it takes a period of 12 years in issuing the reservation letter after registration and during this long period, the cost of construction increase considerably and burden the applicants with very much high costs as is clear in the present case. The increase was to this extent that in place of Rs. 3,600/-, the complainant and other applicants were required to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as seed money. The applicants get themselves registered on the basis of the Scheme that was floated by the Board and when the matter comes to actual allotment after 12 years, the estimated price given in the Scheme rises by 6-7 times. It is for the Housing Board to take up the construction of the houses without unreasonable delay. It is not only deficiency in service, but an unfair trade practice that the Board floats an alluring Scheme and then by its own negligence fails to carry out the Scheme within a reasonable time. A period of more than 8 years after assignment of the priority/seniority is not a short period. IN any event, it is quite clear that the Board could not alter the registration of the complainant for a house on hire-cum-purchase basis into a house on full payment of the cost price of the house. The complainant has waited for about 12 years for the house and then she was faced with a situation that not only the cost of the house increased tremendously, but the method of payment was also changed from hire-purchase to cash payment basis. IN the above circumstances, the District Forum, Ajmer rightly issued directions to the opposite parties to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs 3,000/- deposited by her alongwith interest as per rules and Rs. 500/- as costs. The District Forum has further awarded to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. We reduce this amount to Rs. 3,000/-. This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed, the order of the District Forum, Ajmer dated 19.9.95 is maintained and only the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded as compensation to the complainant is reduced to Rs. 3,000/-. Appeal partly allowed.