SUKHNANDAN AGARWAL vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Kota whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant was dismissed.

IN this case, the appellant had applied for a house under General Registration Scheme on 27.11.1981 and at that time the appellant was assured that a house shall be allotted to him within a period of ten years. At that time the cost of the house was Rs. 70,000. The respondents sent him a letter dated 14.3.1995 in which the complainant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,90,000 in three instalments as seed money on 5.11.1993, 5.4.1994 and 5.10.1994. The appellant did not make any payment and filed a complaint in the Forum below that the respondents had no right to enhance the cost and deprive him the house, especially when those persons who were lower in priority had been given a house. The complainant had requested that he should be allotted a house at its previous rate of Rs. one lakh and possession of the house should be given to him. The respondents replied that the complainant had booked a house under HIG and that the pricing of a house is a civil dispute which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. It was also submitted that the complainant had not deposited any amount in pursuance to the reservation letter dated 24.3.1995 and as such his complaint may kindly be dismissed.

After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

AGGRIEVED from this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. We have heard both the learned Counsel for the parties, have perused the impugned order and considered the materials placed on record. We are in general agreement with the findings of the learned District Forum. It is to be appreciated that the scheme containing the terms and conditions was too well known to the allottees before they put in the applications for the purpose of registration. It was indicated sufficiently well that the appellants are working at no profit and no loss basis and there is variation in the cost of land and cost of construction over the period of years and as such it is not possible for them to estimate the cost of the houses. It was also stated that the price of the house at the time of registration was 70,000. In these circumstances, the respondents were entitled to charge the enhanced price of the house based on the increase in the cost of material, labour and other charges and in terms of costing principles laid down by the respondents.

IN the present case, nothing has been brought on record to show that there is any element of profit at any stage in the calculation of cost. It is well settled that the qestion of pricing, including the escalation of price of the house is wholly outside the purview of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act and the question of pricing of the flat by Housing Authority or Board is not a consumer dispute. Housing Board, Haryana v. Kartar Singh, etc. of Hisar, I (1995) CPJ 7 (NC). The proper Forum for the complainant is to seek relief from a Civil Court. IN these circumstances the costing principles could not be made a matter of interference under the Consumer Protection Act. We are of the view that the complaint insofar as pricing of house is concerned, was not maintainable in the Forum below. In this case, the appellant had not deposited the seed money and has only deposited an amount for the registration under the scheme. As has been reiterated by the Hon''ble National Commission in Sumitra Madhukar Arsekar v. The Chairman, Goa Housing Board & Anr., II (1995) CPJ 194 (NC), the allotment scheme has to be distinguished from the registration and no right of allotment to a house is conferred on any applicant by mere registration under a registration scheme. Registration and reservation of allotment cannot be equated and reservation of accommodation follows allotment. In view of this, when the appellant has not deposited any amount of seed money, he cannot claim reservation of a house for him. As such, there is no force in this appeal. The appellant has also not been able to make out a case of discrimination as compared to other allottees. As such, the appellant even fails on this count also.

IN view of the above facts, in our considered opinion, the discretion exercised by the learned District Forum cannot be termed as arbitrary, capricious or perverse and as such no interference is called for by us. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is hereby maintained. No costs. Appeal dismissed.