VIPUL MATHUR vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

S/Sri Vipul Mathur and Girish Bahadur, who are son and father inter se respectively, have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ''Act'') with the allegations that after having duly deposited as sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards registration fee, Sri Girish Bahadur complainant had got himself registered with the Rajasthan Housing Board (the ''Board'') for allotment of a HIG(A), category residential house in Board''s "Kalpatru" Yojna, that in the mouth of July, 1990 priority number JPR/H/1/900150053 was allotted to him, that after allotment of the priority number he commenced paying monthly instalments of Rs. 600/- with an increase of Rs. 50/- per year towards the sale consideration of the house-to-be allotted that he paid such instalments from the month of October, 1990 up to September 1992, that after September, 1992 the Board stopped sending the challans to him and did not send the requisite challans despite complainant''s letter dated 10.2.1993, that on request of Sri Girish Bahadur, father-complainant, the registration was transferred some time in the month of May or June, 1996 in the name of Vipul Mathur and thereafter a lumpsum amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards the unpaid instalments for the period from 1992 and 1996, was deposited on 21.6.1996, that in a theft, which took place in the house of the complainants on 5.9.1997, all the documents relating to the registration of the house and payments made towards instalments thereto, were stolen, that the documents in possession of the Board relating to complainant''s registration and payments were alleged to have been misplaced in the office of the Boards and despite complainant''s letters dated 15.4.1998, 6.12.1998 and 2.8.1999 no information in that behalf was given by the Board to the complainants, that it was only on 7.8.1998 that the complainants were informed that allotment of independent house could not be made to them due to non-availability of such houses, and required the complainants to opt for allotment of a flat in "open sales" scheme to which proposal the complainants were not agreeable. It was on such facts that the complainants alleged not only rendering deficient service but also adopting unfair trade practice by the Board in the matter of allotment of a house to the complainants and prayed for immediate allotment of an independent house under HIG (A) category of Board''s Kalpatru Yojna of 1990 and award of compensation and interest on deposited amounts totalling to Rs. 11,71,500/- to them.

THE opposite party contested the complaint mainly on the ground that the Board had never agreed to allot an independent house to the registered applicants under the "Kalpatru" Yojna and that a flat on "open sale" basis or under "hire purchase" scheme, as opted by the complainant, would be allotted to them as and when by the prospective proposers/offerors that they had made their offers to the Board for allotment of the houses to them on the terms and conditions mentioned in the scheme and the Board had accepted such proposals. A contract between the parties had thus come into existence with the deposit of the registration amount by the applicants. In paragraph Nos. 1, 2(1), 3(2), 5(2) of the scheme, the Board had specifically promised to the registered applicants to allot "houses" to them within the guaranteed period of 10 years and to allow interest, at the specified rates, on the amounts deposited by them from time-to-time, during the aforesaid period of 10 years. No where the Board had represented that instead of an "independent house" it would allot "flat" to the registered applicants. It was not disputed before us that independent houses and not flats were constructed by the Board under this Kalpatru Yojna from time-to-time and that the registered applicants were allotted such "independent houses" and not "flats". Flats could have been allotted to registered applicant on his opting for the same through specific request. By its unilateral act the Board had no power under the Scheme to allot "independent house" to one applicant and to allot a ''flat'' to another at its own sweet will. In fact averment made by the O.P. in para 8 of his reply read with his letter dated 7.8.1999 belies his statement in that behalf. In his letter 29.8.1999 the O.P. has categorically stated that allotment of an independent house to him according to his priority would take time, but flat may be allotted to him soon. In the instant case the complainants were within their rights to have declined to opt for allotment of a "flat" to them under the said scheme. Since the Board had failed to allot an independent house to the complainant in term of the Kalpatru Yojna they had not only rendered deficient services to the registered complainant but also had adopted unfair trade practice in discharging their part under the contract.

A bare reading of para Nos. 6(2), and 9(a) of the Scheme informs us that the amounts deposited by the registered applicants were refundable by the Board to the registered complainant with their priority number would reach. Preliminary objection against main-tainability of the complaint on the ground of non-rejoinder of proper party was also raised.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and examined the material placed on our record. Insofar as the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party is concerned it has no merits and was rightly not much stressed by the learned Counsel in his argument. The preliminary objection simply was that instead of the Estate Manager of the Board, the Chief Estate Manger should have been made a party. Not only that the relevant provision of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act but also that the main dispute between the parties cannot be allowed to be diluted by non-observance of technical formalities and requirements. It is the redressal of the grievance of a consumer, which is to be done in the exercise of the limited summary jurisdiction of the Redressal Agencies under the C.P. Act, 1986. Once the identity of the real person causing grievance to the consumer is noticed to have been established in a complaint, the complaint of a consumer cannot be thrown away simply for not properly as arraying the parties in the complaint. In the instant case it is the Board, which has been sued, as a juridical person through one of its employees/servants, who legally represents it in the present cause. The complaint is, therefore, maintainable and the preliminary objection is overruled.

COMING now to the merits of the grievance of the complainants we find that in the Kalpatru Yojna, which was widely propagated by the Board, it had been repeatedly mentioned that the registered applicants would be definitely allotted "residential house", applied for by them, within a period of 10 years. Such representation was made at more than one occasions in the scheme promulgated. This representation was in fact a "promise" made by the Board in its invitation to offer made through the promulgation of the Kalpatru Yojna by it. It was on reliance upon such promise compound interest, as specified therein, the event of Boards failing to allot an independent house to him in terms of the Kalpatru Yojna. In view of the above discussion the complainants are entitled to the following reliefs against the opposite party, namely, (1) The Board-O.P. shall allot a MIG(A) category house in its Kalpatru Yojna to Vipul Mathur complainant, as per terms and conditions of the said Yojna within a period of four months from the service of this order upon it. For that purpose, within a period of two months after the service of this order on it, the Board shall issue the proposed allotment order to him showing therein the amount payable by him as per scheme after giving set-off to the amount (with interest), deposited by him from time-to-time.

(2) In the event of Board''s failing to carry out the instructions given in No. (1) above, the Board shall refund the amounts, paid by the complainants towards registration and instalments including the lampsum amount of Rs. 35,000/-, with interest specified in paras 6(2) and 9 of the scheme within next one month after the expiry of the period of four months prescribed under No. 1 above. In the event of not paying such amounts within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry compound interests @ 12% p.a. from the dates of their deposits, as is chargeable by the Board from the defaulters in term of para No. 10 of the scheme.

(3) Since payment of interest on the moneys paid by the complainant to the Board from time-to-time simply compensates the complainant for the non-utilization of his money during such period, the Board shall, in-addition to the amount refundable under (2) above, further pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the registered complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort and harassment.

(4) The O.P. Board shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the registered complainant as cost of this litigation.

(5) The Board, in the first instance, shall pay the aforementioned amounts to the registered applicant, in case it fails to comply with directions contained in No. (1) above,) and shall thereafter realize such and other amounts spent on this litigation from the erring and delinquent official/officer/in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of M.K. Gupta v. Lucknow Development Authority.

Complaint allowed.