V.N. MATHUR vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

FACTS as are found on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant are that after depositing an amount of Rs. 4,600/- as registration charges vide Challan No. 40248 dated 10.3.83, the complainant made an application to the Rajasthan Housing Board for registering him for allotment of a MIG category ''B'' house in Sanganer Scheme under General Registration Scheme, 1982 of the Board. The Rajasthan Housing Board registered the complainant for the said category house and by its letter dated 15.1.1986 assigned to the complainant priority No. 01361. It appears that on 4.6.92, the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short, hereinafter "the Board") published a communiqu in daily Nav Bharat Times dated 4.6.92 to the effect that if an applicant is registered for a house on hire-cum-purchase basis, he can get a house early on submitting an option to have the house on cash payment basis. Such applicants can obtain loan from H.D.F.C./L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. or other financial institutions for the house and in this manner they can get the house allotted from the Board on cash payment basis by priority. In response to this communiqu published by the Board in Nav Bharat Times, the complainant on 4.6.92 gave an option to the Board to have the house on cash payment basis. The Housing Board accepted the option made by the complainant and re-assigned to him priority No. MB/G/82/ORS/248.

THEREAFTER the Housing Board sent a reservation letter dated 25.7.92 to the complainant reserving for him a M.I.G.-B category house and requiring him to deposit a total amount of Rs. 40,000/- as seed money by three instalments respectively of the amounts of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-. Complainant deposited all the three instalments of seed money and further an amount of Rs. 15,000/- more. Thus in place of Rs. 40,000/- as seed money, the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 55,000/-. Rajasthan Housing Board on 31.5.94 issued an allotment letter to the complainant allotting him M.I.G. category ''B'' house No. 32/243 in Sanganer. In this allotment letter, cost of land (162 sq. mtrs.) @ Rs. 480/- per sq. mtr. was charged amounting to Rs. 77,760 /-. Cost of extra land 82 sq. mtrs. amounting to Rs. 49,200/- was further charged. Cost of construction of the house was specified as Rs. 2,03,140/-. Extra charges for corner house amounting to Rs. 4,062/- was further levied. Other charges were Rs. 6,683/- for ancillary service charges, Rs. 3,174/- as lease money (one year) and Rs. 3,583/- as interest on outstanding seed money. Thus the total came to Rs. 3,47,603/-. From this amount, deduction was made of Rs. 4,600/- deposited as registration amount, of Rs. 5,018/- as interest thereon, of Rs. 55,000/- already deposited as seed money by the complainant and Rs. 14,521/- on account of interest on seed money. Thus a total amount of Rs. 79,139/- was deducted and net amount to be paid by the complainant was mentioned as Rs. 2,68,464/-.

Complainant sent representations dated 25.8.94 and 27.8.94 (Annexures 14 and 15) to the Secretary and Estate Manager of the Board raising certain objections against cost of the land and house and certain other charges mentioned in the allotment letter. However, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,65,000/- on 27.8.94, Rs.85,000/- on 16.9.94 and Rs. 18,464/- on 29.9.94, in all Rs. 2,68,464/- as demanded in the allotment letter by the Board. The Board then on 10.11.91 issued letter for delivery of possession of the allotted house in favour of the complainant. The complainant had further to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,030/- and he was to obtain possession of the house by 14.12.94. Complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 1,030/- on 11.11.94. Possession of the allotted house was delivered to the complainant on 19.11.94.

PRESENT complaint was filed by the complainant in this State Commission on 20.1.95. Complainant has claimed following relief''s in his complaint, namely : (1) Opposite Party had charged Rs. 1,97,000/- as cost of the allotted house more and this amount be directed to be paid by the Opposite Party to the complainant with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from 29.9.94. (2) House allotted to the complainant is not a corner house and, therefore, Rs. 4,063/- have been charged wrongly and this amount may be directed to be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from 29.9.94. (3) Opposite Party may be directed to make available basic facilities of pipe line, electricity line, sewerage line etc. to the house allotted and to get removed the electricity wires passing over the house allotted. (4) Compensation amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs may be awarded to the complainant for economic loss and mental and physical distress. (5) An amount of Rs. 5,500/- may be awarded as costs of the complaint.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party was required to file version within 30 days of the service. Notice of the complaint was served on 25.2.95. However, no version was filed by the Opposite Party within 30 days. Appearance was put on behalf of the Opposite Party on 17.5.95. By that date, the statutory period of 30 days had already expired much before for filing the version. Therefore, further opportunity to the Opposite Party for filing version was closed. In evidence, the complainant filed his own affidavit apart from photocopies of certain documents which he had already filed alongwith the complaint. Opposite Party was also given opportunity on 20.6.95 to adduce its evidence by affidavits and documents, if any, by 21.7.95. On 21.7.95, the Opposite Party sought time to file affidavits and documents which was granted subject to payment of Rs. 400/- as costs. Complaint was adjourned to 1.8.95. On 1.8.95, neither the Opposite Party paid costs to the complainant nor adduced any evidence by affidavits and documents. Evidence of the Opposite Party was, therefore, closed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. WE have also perused the file relating to the complainant maintained by the Housing Board. With regard to the relief claimed by the complainant for refund on the basis that he has been charged Rs. 1,97,000/- more as cost of the house, the case of the complainant as set forth in para 10 of the complaint is that one other applicant Maharaj Krishna Sharma had also applied for allotment of a house and in the allotment letter Annexure 13 issued in favour of Maharaj Krishna Sharma, the total cost of the house was mentioned as Rs. 2,34,907.50, while in the case of the complainant, the total cost of the house has been mentioned as Rs. 3,47,603/-. It is, therefore, said that the complainant has been charged approximately Rs. 1,12,000/- more than what had been charged from Maharaj Krishna Sharma. In para 17 of the complaint, the complainant has alleged that the Board had represented in its printed booklet that the approximate cost of MIG-B category house is Rs. 50,000/-. Complainant has stated that he is filing the copy of the booklet as Annexure 24.

WITH regard to allotment letter dated 24.11.92 of Maharaj Krishna Sharma (Annexure 13), it may be observed that there is no evidence to the effect that Maharaj Krishna Sharma had also initially got himself registered for MIG Category-''B'' on hire-purchase basis and thereafter in pursuance of the advertisement dated 4.6.92 in Nav Bharat Times, he gave option for allotment of house on cash payment basis. The fact that Maharaj Krishna Sharma was required to pay seed money only of Rs. 12,000/- and that his year of allotment was dated 18.7.92 gives an indication that Maharaj Krishna Sharma had initially got himself registered for a MIG-B category house on cash payment basis and not on hire purchase basis. That was why House No. 32/74 was allotted to Maharaj Krishna Sharma on 24.11.92 and this allottee had deposited the seed money much before than the complainant. So far as the complainant is concerned, he had initially applied for registration on hire purchase basis and it was only later on 4.6.92 that he made an option to purchase the house on cash payment basis. To the complainant reservation letter was issued on 25.7.92 and the complainant had deposited the seed money by 8.1.93. Complainant was required to deposit a total amount of Rs. 40,000/- as seed money and not only Rs. 12,000/- as was in the case of Maharaj Krishna Sharma. Even the last date of deposit of third installment of seed money was 13 months from the date of issue of reservation letter dated 25.7.92. Case of Maharaj Krishna Sharma, therefore, clearly did not stand on the same footing. As the year of allotment of house to Maharaj Krishna Sharma was 18.7.92 and as house was allotted to him on 24.11.92, naturally cost of his house would be less than the house allotted to the complainant. WITH regard to the house allotted to the complainant, date of draw according to his revised priority was 7.1.94 and costing was dated 9.5.94 and allotment letter was issued to him on 31.5.92. Clearly the complainant and Maharaj Krishna Sharma, for reasons stated above did not stand on the same footing with respect to the cost to be charged. There was thus no discriminatory treatment as regards the complainant in the matter of costing.

AS to averments contained in para 17 of the complaint, firstly it may be stated that Annexure 24 referred to in the said para is not the booklet mentioning cost of house of MIG-B category was alleged by the complainant. Annexure 24 produced by the complainant is applicant''s copy of list of inventory of items in the house at the time of delivery of possession and certificate regarding handing over and taking over possession of the allotted house by the complainant on 19.11.94. Apart from that, even if it is assumed that in General Registration Scheme of 1982, the approximate cost of MIG-B house was given as Rs. 50,000/- only, it may be stated that the complainant later on changed his option of hire purchase allotment to cash payment basis in the year 1992 and a revised priority No. 248 was allotted to him in the category of persons who had so changed over. Costing made in the year 1982 was approximate. On 4.6.92 the cost of MIG-B house was mentioned as 1.5 lakhs. However, house as allotted to the complainant on 31.5.94 as per costing made on 9.5.94. National Commission in series of cases has held that Consumer Redressal Agencies cannot go into the question of costing. Costing of the house depends on the date when the construction of the house was completed, the date of reservation and other factors. These matters require elaborate evidence and cannot be decided in summary procedure applicable in the matter of consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We, therefore, refuse to go into the question of costing of the allotted house. We have already held above that there was no discrimination in relation to the complainant as the complainant did not stand on the same footing on which Maharaj Krishna Sharma allottee of house No. 32/74 stood.

As regards, the charging of Rs. 4,063/- extra from the complainant on the basis that house No. 32/243 was a corner house, on perusal of the file of the Rajasthan Housing Board produced before us, it is clear that on 6.2.95 the Resident Engineer, Division-IV, Rajasthan Housing Board had written a letter to the Estate Manager, Jaipur-Circle-I that the house allotted to the complainant was of an ordinary nature. The Rajasthan Housing Board had, in the note sheets of its file, approved that the amount of Rs. 4,063/- was incorrectly charged from the complainant. Complainant is, therefore, correct that the house allotted to him was not a corner house and, therefore, the additional amount of Rs. 4,063/- for corner house was wrongly levied in the allotment letter and wrongly recovered from the complainant.

COMPLAINANT has filed affidavit to the effect that the Opposite Party has not laid down main pipe line, sewerage line and electricity line in front of the allotted house and on account of this, the complainant is not in a position to use the allotted house. It has also been deposed that from over the house allotted to the complainant, electricity distribution line is passing which would always remain a source of danger to the complainant and his family members. As has already been stated that the Opposite Party has neither filed any version in the case or any affidavit or evidence in rebuttal. COMPLAINANT had sent a letter dated 16.1.95 to the Opposite Party in which he had stated that water pipe line had not been laid down even after the possession of the house had been delivered on 19.11.94. House allotted was not connected with the sewerage line. Electricity line had not been laid in the locality. One pole was temporarily erected near the allotted house and electricity wires are passing over the land of the allotted house. It appears from this letter dated 16.1.95 sent by the complainant to the Deputy Housing Commissioner of the Board that the main grievance of the complainant was that main water pipe line had not been laid. It further appears that although sewerage line was there, but since main water pipe was not laid, house No. 32/243 was not connected with the sewerage line. So far as electricity is concerned, a temporary pole had been erected near house No. 32/243 and the electricity wires were passing over the land of the allotted house. The Opposite Party had charged from the complainant an amount of Rs. 6683/- for ancillary charges and, therefore, it was the obligation of the Opposite Party to lay the main water distribution line and to connect the house of the complainant with sewerage line. It was also its obligation to lay down electricity distribution line in orderly manner. The electricity wire should not pass over the land allotted. We are of the view that for this negligence of the Opposite Party, the complainant should be awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. As regards the cost of 82 sq. mtrs. extra land charged from the complainant, it appears to be clear that house allotted to the complainant had this much extra land. In his letter dated 28.8.94 sent by the complainant to the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board the complainant stated that he was being unnecessarily given 82 sq. mtrs. extra land. This itself goes to show that the complainant was allotted 82 sq. mtrs. extra land. The complainant has already obtained the possession of the allotted house and of the extra land on 19.11.94. Consequently, he is not entitled to any refund of the cost of 82 sq. mtrs. extra land charged from him.

AS a result of the above discussion and findings, we only partly allow the complaint and direct the Opposite Party to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 4063/- charged as extra amount on account of corner house with interest at 18% per annum from 29.9.1994 till its payment. The Opposite Party will further pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of non-laying of distribution water pipe line, non-connecting the house of the complainant with the sewerage line and not properly laying down the electricity distribution line. We also direct the Opposite Party to remove the electricity distribution wires from over the land allotted to the complainant with the house within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The Opposite Party will pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- as costs of the complaint. Remaining claim of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs as the Opposite Party has not filed any version and has not adduced any evidence. Complaint partly allowed with costs.